The world of football is currently embroiled in a significant dispute involving FIFA and various stakeholders, including domestic leagues and players’ unions, over the scheduling of international competitions. At the heart of the controversy is the accusation that FIFA has ignored collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in setting its competition calendar, particularly concerning the new 32-team Club World Cup and upcoming World Cups. This analysis explores the multifaceted nature of this dispute, examining the positions of FIFA, leagues, players’ unions, and the legal and labour implications involved.
FIFA’s Defence: Organiser’s Rights and Consultation Claims
FIFA has responded firmly to accusations of unilateralism and disregard for CBAs. The organisation insists that it has the right to set competition parameters within the regulatory framework governing international football.
“FIFA consulted widely with stakeholders including the World Leagues Association (WLA) and FIFPRO, the global players’ union,”
stated Mattias Grafstrom, FIFA Secretary General, emphasizing that the scheduling decisions were made after extensive consultation. FIFA points to the approval of the 2025-2030 international match calendar at the FIFA Congress in March 2024 as evidence of transparency and stakeholder involvement.
Despite the criticism, FIFA maintains it acted within its remit as the competition organiser. Grafstrom further remarked,
“We are open to dialogue and willing to meet leagues and unions over the summer to discuss concerns further, but we disagree with the tone and content of their complaints.”
This suggests FIFA’s readiness for negotiation but underscores its confidence in the legitimacy of its scheduling decisions.
Leagues and Players’ Unions: Accusations of Abuse and Economic Harm
In stark contrast, European leagues and players’ unions have voiced strong opposition to FIFA’s approach, accusing the organisation of abusing its dominant position. The Premier League, LaLiga, Serie A, and other top European leagues, alongside FIFPRO, argue that FIFA’s scheduling decisions were imposed without proper consultation, violating the spirit and letter of collective bargaining agreements.
The leagues contend that FIFA’s calendar disrupts domestic competitions, causes economic harm, and jeopardizes player welfare.
“There was no prior consultation before the FIFA Council approved the calendar in March 2024,”
they assert, highlighting a breakdown in communication and cooperation. The leagues have escalated their grievances by filing legal complaints with the European Commission, emphasizing conflicts of interest as FIFA acts both as regulator and competition organiser.
FIFPRO has echoed these concerns, emphasizing the toll on players.
“Player frustration over overloaded schedules has reached a breaking point; legal action is the only recourse after ignored requests for dialogue,”
FIFPRO representatives have stated. The players’ union points to the risk of burnout and injury as a direct consequence of FIFA’s compressed scheduling, especially with the upcoming 2025 Club World Cup and the 2026 World Cup looming large.
Labour Law and Collective Bargaining Implications
One of the most critical dimensions of this dispute is the potential breach of collective bargaining agreements. CBAs between leagues and players’ unions typically include provisions on player workload, rest periods, and employment conditions. FIFA’s unilateral scheduling risks violating these agreements, raising serious labour law concerns.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, FIFA issued the Football Regulatory Issues (CFRI) document, which recommended that any unilateral changes to employment agreements must be made in good faith, be reasonable, and respect CBAs or national law. The current scheduling conflicts appear to contravene these principles, undermining negotiated agreements designed to protect players’ health and clubs’ operational stability.
The French Players’ Union (Fédération Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels) has been particularly vocal, condemning FIFA’s actions as a “game of massacre” that harms player health. They have called urgently for scheduling reform, highlighting the human cost behind the commercial and organisational disputes.
Historical Context: Qatar 2022 and Saudi 2034
This is not the first time FIFA’s scheduling has sparked controversy. The 2022 World Cup in Qatar was moved to winter, disrupting the traditional European league calendar and causing widespread logistical and commercial challenges. Many leagues and players’ unions felt sidelined during the decision-making process, setting a precedent for the current tensions.
Looking ahead, the 2034 World Cup, planned for Saudi Arabia and expected to feature 48 teams and 104 games over five weeks, is already a source of contention. The event’s winter scheduling could disrupt leagues for up to seven weeks and require player release for nearly 49 days. European leagues and players have expressed strong opposition, citing concerns about player welfare and the integrity of domestic competitions. This looming event adds urgency to the current dispute and underscores the broader governance challenges FIFA faces.
The Economic and Sporting Stakes
The economic implications of FIFA’s scheduling decisions are substantial. Domestic leagues generate significant revenue from broadcasting, sponsorship, and matchday income. Disruptions caused by extended international tournaments can lead to financial losses and contractual complications with broadcasters and sponsors.
Furthermore, the sporting integrity of domestic leagues is at risk. Clubs may lose key players for prolonged periods, affecting competition outcomes and fan engagement. The cumulative effect of congested fixtures also increases injury risk, potentially diminishing the quality of football on display.
Leagues argue that FIFA’s failure to adequately consult with them and players’ unions undermines the collaborative governance model necessary for football’s sustainable growth. They advocate for a more balanced approach that respects CBAs and ensures scheduling decisions are made with all stakeholders’ interests in mind.
Legal and Regulatory Challenges
The legal complaints filed by European leagues and FIFPRO at the European Commission highlight the regulatory complexity of this dispute. They accuse FIFA of abusing its dominant position and acting in conflict with EU competition law by imposing schedules without proper stakeholder consultation.
This legal dimension raises questions about FIFA’s dual role as both regulator and competition organiser, which may create conflicts of interest. Critics argue that independent oversight or clearer separation of powers is needed to prevent such disputes and protect the rights of leagues and players.
The ongoing litigation could set important precedents for football governance, potentially reshaping how international calendars are negotiated and enforced in the future.
Prospects for Resolution and Future Governance
Despite the acrimony, there are signs that dialogue remains possible. FIFA’s expressed willingness to meet with leagues and unions over the summer indicates a window for negotiation. However, the tone and content of the disputes suggest that trust has been eroded, and rebuilding collaborative relationships will require goodwill from all parties.
The dispute also highlights the need for clearer frameworks governing the interaction between FIFA, domestic leagues, and players’ unions. Establishing formal mechanisms for consultation and dispute resolution could prevent similar conflicts in the future.
Moreover, the growing emphasis on player welfare in football governance suggests that scheduling decisions will increasingly need to balance commercial imperatives with health and labour considerations. The current controversy may serve as a catalyst for reform in this area.
The accusation that FIFA has ignored collective bargaining agreements in its scheduling decisions exposes deep fissures in the governance of world football. While FIFA insists it acted within its rights and consulted stakeholders, leagues and players’ unions vehemently disagree, citing economic harm, player welfare concerns, and breaches of negotiated agreements.
This dispute is emblematic of broader tensions between global football governance and the rights of domestic leagues and players. It raises critical questions about the balance of power, the role of collective bargaining, and the need for transparent, inclusive decision-making processes.
As legal battles unfold and negotiations continue, the football community faces a pivotal moment. The resolution of this conflict will shape not only the international match calendar but also the future of football governance, player welfare, and the sport’s global integrity.
