Many people work 5 or 6 days a week doing hard physical work for 8 to 12 hours every day in less-than- favourable conditions for minimum wages. Some then spend hard-earned money to follow their favourite team. It is hard to have any sympathy for "sportspersons" who earn more in a few minutes than others earn in a week, month or year.
And those who do play regularly for their local teams do play at their highest level, albeit not superstars, for free.
As a keen but untalented sportsman ,as many of us are, I played cricket on a Friday evening, football Saturday morning, cricket on Saturday afternoon and Sunday.
My "stats".....
Football - played about 30 - scored1 - sent off 1
Cricket - played about 20
Innings 2 - Not out 1 - Runs 6 (desperate top edge over 3rd man)
Bowling - 1 for 0 off 1 over
Fielding - Catches 40+. Run outs

Not an impressive sporting record apart from the catches in cricket. Slip fielding - call me Twizzle.

Like above they should maybe try a 36-48 hour week maybe even more for folks to try and pay the bills and feed their families.

Give them 27 days off per year and give them 8-12 hour days.

Most of them life luxury lives, as presuming you are talking about the top players

So if they are both mentally and physically knackered then thats on them, put them in the 'real world' for a week or two and see how they get on.

People don't really understand the difference between tiredness and fitness.

You can't get the best out of players who need to be at their physical peak all season long if you're overworking them.

A labourer can do their job hungover. There's a massive difference.

If there's a danger of things being overdone, it's not due to the number of games. Which have always remained pretty consistent. It's coaches placing more and more demands on players in terms of physical fitness and expected output (I'm looking at you Jurgen). The increase to 5 subs will help allay issues to an extent but unfortunately there is no preventing managers and coaches from pushing the boundaries in terms of physical demands on players, which absolutely is the biggest issue

the increase of subs to 5 is very interesting/disturbing. i believe it will affect the chance of young players. yes i know if you good enough ...it will only benefit the wealthy clubs as they can sign better players who will be told there is a rotation, we will pay you mega bucks, look at our squad, we will win things, it will help keep you from so called burn out yadda yadda yadda

tbf its the wealthy clubs who need it, since they play a lot more games as do their players. This isnt their fault?

Always found it annoying the smaller clubs complained, they should be made to play extra games midweek tomake it fair? Maybe that'd shut them up? i mean they only moan because they know the advantage they have when CL club plays on wed and is forced to play saturday 12.30 where as theyve had 7 days off and twice the prep time.

Now that advantage they hold is cut slightly they throw their toys out of the pram as they did with rejecting 5 subs during covid which was pathetic, the only league that did so, and yet it didnt save Wilder or Sheffield .

Yes i know the wealthier clubs are priviledged in being able to have better players/squads but that too comes with downsides. I'd argue the quality different of replacing a first team player on average for them (often world class) with a sub is a bigger drop off than a mid table club replacing theirs. As its very hard to have that quality of player on the bench and happy.

The 5 subs should have been made so the 2 extra are academy players only or something. As for the OP glad to see Bale speaking out on it, after Pep and Klopp etc have been for ages. The data backs them up but obviously its hard to get the greedy to take notice when it hurts the coffers.

I agree with you, Kammy, the five subs rule tilts the game in favour of the bigger clubs even further. Can you imagine how that rule will benefit Liverpool and City? Thye can stretch teams to the limit with their first eleven and then put on four or five pairs of fresh legs, of equal ability, in the last quarter? The strategic advantage will be massive.

Also the smaller clubs are often working harder sicne theyre out of possession, so the 5 subs really should be benefitting them more, loads of stuff like this people fail to think about. Just focus on benefits big clubs.

comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 7 minutes ago
tbf its the wealthy clubs who need it, since they play a lot more games as do their players. This isnt their fault?

Always found it annoying the smaller clubs complained, they should be made to play extra games midweek tomake it fair? Maybe that'd shut them up? i mean they only moan because they know the advantage they have when CL club plays on wed and is forced to play saturday 12.30 where as theyve had 7 days off and twice the prep time.

Now that advantage they hold is cut slightly they throw their toys out of the pram as they did with rejecting 5 subs during covid which was pathetic, the only league that did so, and yet it didnt save Wilder or Sheffield.

Yes i know the wealthier clubs are priviledged in being able to have better players/squads but that too comes with downsides. I'd argue the quality different of replacing a first team player on average for them (often world class) with a sub is a bigger drop off than a mid table club replacing theirs. As its very hard to have that quality of player on the bench and happy.

The 5 subs should have been made so the 2 extra are academy players only or something. As for the OP glad to see Bale speaking out on it, after Pep and Klopp etc have been for ages. The data backs them up but obviously its hard to get the greedy to take notice when it hurts the coffers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed recently a top Premiership team had a subs bench worth over £300m in one match. With that talent it makes a mockery of your point. Your bench is better than most teams so having two teams more than makes up for the extra games top teams play. Your squad could play 30 games each of a 60 game season. If the 4 top teams all did this it’d be a level playing field between. But you don’t, you play the same 15.. burning them out. Your fault. If you want a Rangers/Celtic situation (we’re getting there) good for you. Personally I’d prefer a competiton where more than 4-5 teams had a chance.

5 subs only benefits the big clubs with big squads. City take of foden and bring on grealish. Leeds take off raphinia and replace with someone from U23s. Thats why the likes of city and liverpool wanted it as they have the resources others dont but the big falling down on this whole argument came as soon as someone mentioned Bale. Man is a joke and an embarressment. Only person who looks forward to Nations league so he can get the odd game. Great player but madrid are right he is a parasite. Never available to play for them more often than not yet always plays for wales. Hate people like him and regard pogba to be of a similar mould. They only care about the money and couldnt care less that someone spent a large portion of their wages from working 60 hours a week in a manual job to watch them play only to find out pogba isnt playing because his barbour wasnt available to cut his hair or bale forgot his alice band

Don't agree 5 subs favours the "big teams". As InBefore says, it is actually the "smaller" clubs who benefit more from making subs.

Just look at City last season.
2-1 down vs Spurs from 60 to 90 minutes. They made 1 sub that game.

0-0m against Palace. By the reasoning on here they would bring on Sterling, Jesus, Gundogan and change the game. Subs used - 0.

"Big" teams game plans don't tend to change that much in 90. "Smaller" teams do. Plus "smaller" teams tend to chase more and have less possession, so players tire more over the 90.

Leeds take off Raphina and put on Spanish international Rodrigo...

As for the Nations League, it did not add any fixtures to the football calendar. It just meant meaningless friendlies were largely phased out. The Nations League is actually a very successful competition which has been quickly mirrored across over continents. It has given competitive fixtures to nations who otherwise were suffering pretty pointless qualifying campaign after pretty pointless qualifying campaign.

comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 3 hours, 38 minutes ago

A labourer can do their job hungover. There's a massive difference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TBF Best, Gascoigne, McGrath, Adams did a decent job of it but yes, not nowadays.

The wealthy clubs moan all the time about to many games, but don't moan about the money it brings them!..

As for being over played with internationals, there'll be people in the background drawing up new plans for the next rip off fans'll have to pay for!..

Money is the game, shame the normal everyday working man can't afford to take all his kids to a game!..

So if you were to say to the players you can have the number of games reduced as long as you have your wages reduced by a commensurate amount. For example 10% less games in exchange for 10% less wages. How many would sign up for that?

I read players go on about player welfare and too many games but none of them are talking about accepting a cut in pay to facilitate the reduced income that would result.

comment by LufcGermany (U6066)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
The wealthy clubs moan all the time about to many games, but don't moan about the money it brings them!..

As for being over played with internationals, there'll be people in the background drawing up new plans for the next rip off fans'll have to pay for!..

Money is the game, shame the normal everyday working man can't afford to take all his kids to a game!..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats the thing, the money isnt the issue theyre asking the powers to take less money to protect players welfare and maintain a higher quality product. Atleast Klopp and Pep etc want better rests between games. And the 5 subs was to help prevent muscle/fatigure injuries. Doesnt mean they will always use 5 subs either btw or change tactics cause of it. For the most part teams want their strongest 11 out on the pitch with the preferred tactics.

The wages are in line with it all, it all comes from the people making the comps and games and the money from them, if it goes up wages go up if it goes down theyll go down. No point blaming this on the ones highlighting the issues. Theyre real issues that need addressing.

Theyll play all the games/comps just give them reasonable recovery times ( not wed night saturday noon) and breaks between them all. And 5 subs to help manage fatigue injuries. Pretty reasonable if you ask me. Not much to ask for considering all thats against you if you are a bigger club, theres more to consider thats just how it is.

Shouldnt be disregarded just because they get more money for it theyre still human beings at the end of the day not machines.

The bigger clubs benefit more from 5 subs, I agree with this but they also play a hell of a lot more games.

Funny thing is, massive squad City actually named one of the smallest squads, plus used far less players than the likes of Everton, Villa, Watford and - yes - Leeds. City also used less subs than most over the PL season.

When clubs could use 5 subs during the pandemic, Brighton used all 5 the most. The likes of Bournemouth and Norwich - very small clubs - also used the 5 subs more than City.

Spurs, probably considered among the "big clubs" didn't use the full allocation at all,

Way i see it some players are earning a week what most people would take 10 years to earn working shifts on a manual job. Its about time the privileged prima donnas got their heads out of their ar5es and had a look at the real world. They use excuses that they have a short career but some earn in a month what low paid people will earn in a lifetime and they manage to survive so why cant the like of Bale see this. He whinges about players being burnt out when he has managed about 20 league games a year over last 7 or 8 years at best and unless playing for wales hasnt put in much effort in a lot of his games. Guy had potential to be one of the greatest of all time but preferred to play golf whilst claiming to be injured so he couldnt play for Madrid. Players like him show everything that is wrong with football. Greed from top to bottom and the whole football business is rotten to the core and its main aim seems to be to rob fans blind so they can continue with their elaborate lifestyles but they still claim to be overworked and moan when someone in the stands questions them or boos them for making zero effort

just end the Euro and world cup - club soccerball is where it's at

Players well being, if clubs play as much football as the rich clubs do, then they should train them less, they'll get enough training while running after the money bags their top clubs are chasing!..

And a % off that bag!..

There was a time when teams played 3 times a week and if their game plan got jammed they could see 2 games in 4 days!..

Players are meant to be a lot fitter these days, its a wonder how they didn't moan about it as much back in them days as they do now!..

comment by LufcGermany (U6066)
posted 4 minutes ago
Players well being, if clubs play as much football as the rich clubs do, then they should train them less, they'll get enough training while running after the money bags their top clubs are chasing!..

And a % off that bag!..

There was a time when teams played 3 times a week and if their game plan got jammed they could see 2 games in 4 days!..

Players are meant to be a lot fitter these days, its a wonder how they didn't moan about it as much back in them days as they do now!..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
take a look at leeds end of season in 69/70 season. lost fa cup european cup and league all down to playing games sometimes 2 in 2 days. Would hate to hear klopp if he had a fixture list like that
http://www.footballsite.co.uk/Statistics/Seasons/1969-70/ClubResults/1969-70.LeedsUnited.html

comment by LDL-Potato Picker and Proud (U6788)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LufcGermany (U6066)
posted 4 minutes ago
Players well being, if clubs play as much football as the rich clubs do, then they should train them less, they'll get enough training while running after the money bags their top clubs are chasing!..

And a % off that bag!..

There was a time when teams played 3 times a week and if their game plan got jammed they could see 2 games in 4 days!..

Players are meant to be a lot fitter these days, its a wonder how they didn't moan about it as much back in them days as they do now!..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
take a look at leeds end of season in 69/70 season. lost fa cup european cup and league all down to playing games sometimes 2 in 2 days. Would hate to hear klopp if he had a fixture list like that
http://www.footballsite.co.uk/Statistics/Seasons/1969-70/ClubResults/1969-70.LeedsUnited.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, and you lost most of them. Hardly an advert for playing so many games in a short space of time!

1 win in 10 and 7 losses. Why don't modern managers want this???!!

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by LDL-Potato Picker and Proud (U6788)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LufcGermany (U6066)
posted 4 minutes ago
Players well being, if clubs play as much football as the rich clubs do, then they should train them less, they'll get enough training while running after the money bags their top clubs are chasing!..

And a % off that bag!..

There was a time when teams played 3 times a week and if their game plan got jammed they could see 2 games in 4 days!..

Players are meant to be a lot fitter these days, its a wonder how they didn't moan about it as much back in them days as they do now!..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
take a look at leeds end of season in 69/70 season. lost fa cup european cup and league all down to playing games sometimes 2 in 2 days. Would hate to hear klopp if he had a fixture list like that
http://www.footballsite.co.uk/Statistics/Seasons/1969-70/ClubResults/1969-70.LeedsUnited.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, and you lost most of them. Hardly an advert for playing so many games in a short space of time!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah but it just goes to show that modern day footballers are treated like royalty and wrapped in cotton wool. Those were the days when head high tackles were normal and im not sure if you were allowed any substitutes back then, maybe 1 and most teams had about 14 or 15 of a squad plus they nearly all drank and smoked and thought nothing of a fish supper. Imagine how long messi and ronaldo and the rest would have lasted then yet players like eddie gray and george best who were more skillful than most thrived

Messi and Ronaldo would be the best players around and would run rings around everyone.