So many childish and straight up bad takes here (capitalism fault, environment, bla bla)
What it boils down to is what average stress load can a footballer physically take and the lack of transparency what is expected in terms of a football club.
If they recognise, on average, that the amount of games exceeds the possibility for the average player, then a) they make it clear that clubs should structure around creating more squad depth to enable rotation and look at transfer policy in a more well-rounded squad than paying stupid money for the ideal 11.
Or b) cut on games and competitions that aren’t necessary (league cup).
The base problem is that clubs are over-paying on transfer and player salaries, which incentivises the need for more matches.
Clubs just need to get it out of their heads that they have to succumb to stupid transfer fees.
How is “capitalism’s fault” a childish excuse, it’s a genuine reason why there’s too many games, so the Premier League, UEFA, FIFA etc. can be greedy and make more money
It isn’t. It’s overspending. Which has nothing to do with economic system. But straight up poor club management.
You can set rules like budget or salary limit without a systematic change.
That’s why dying “capitalism bad” is a dumb and childish statement.
A socialist system would also extort as many games as possible out of the players. If anything capitalist systems have proven to be far more responsive to overtaxing resources, whereas historically socialist systems are hesitant to reduce production of a good or service.
I don’t think a socialist system is the best solution either
A more moderate, less greedy capitalist system would be good, like making teams in Europe unable to participate in the League cup, and maybe reducing the teams in the Prem and have less games in pre season
Reducing the league cup games only delegitimises the competition. The better solution, objectively, is to reduce the number of european games played. Imo jt should be a straight knockout, no group stage games.
So many childish and straight up bad takes here (capitalism fault, environment, bla bla) What it boils down to is what average stress load can a footballer physically take and the lack of transparency what is expected in terms of a football club.
If they recognise, on average, that the amount of games exceeds the possibility for the average player, then a) they make it clear that clubs should structure around creating more squad depth to enable rotation and look at transfer policy in a more well-rounded squad than paying stupid money for the ideal 11. Or b) cut on games and competitions that aren’t necessary (league cup). The base problem is that clubs are over-paying on transfer and player salaries, which incentivises the need for more matches.
Clubs just need to get it out of their heads that they have to succumb to stupid transfer fees.
How is “capitalism’s fault” a childish excuse, it’s a genuine reason why there’s too many games, so the Premier League, UEFA, FIFA etc. can be greedy and make more money
That’s what capitalism is
It isn’t. It’s overspending. Which has nothing to do with economic system. But straight up poor club management. You can set rules like budget or salary limit without a systematic change.
That’s why dying “capitalism bad” is a dumb and childish statement.
A socialist system would also extort as many games as possible out of the players. If anything capitalist systems have proven to be far more responsive to overtaxing resources, whereas historically socialist systems are hesitant to reduce production of a good or service.
I don’t think a socialist system is the best solution either
A more moderate, less greedy capitalist system would be good, like making teams in Europe unable to participate in the League cup, and maybe reducing the teams in the Prem and have less games in pre season
Reducing the league cup games only delegitimises the competition. The better solution, objectively, is to reduce the number of european games played. Imo jt should be a straight knockout, no group stage games.