In recent months, a significant controversy has emerged in the world of football, centering on FIFA’s plans to expand the international match calendar. This expansion includes proposals to increase the number of matches in the FIFA Club World Cup and the FIFA World Cup, sparking a strong backlash from key stakeholders such as FIFPRO (the global players’ union), European leagues, and leading clubs.
The escalating tensions culminated in a formal complaint filed to the European Commission, accusing FIFA of abusing its dominant position and acting in violation of European Union competition law. This analysis explores the multifaceted dimensions of this dispute, examining the concerns about player welfare, the economic sustainability of leagues, the legal implications, and the broader governance challenges facing world football.
FIFA’s Calendar Expansion: The Core of the Controversy
At the heart of the conflict is FIFA’s unilateral decision to expand the international match calendar. This includes the ambitious plan to increase the FIFA Club World Cup to 32 teams starting in 2025 and to expand the FIFA World Cup to 46 teams by 2026. While FIFA argues that these expansions are designed to grow the sport globally and enhance its commercial appeal, the move has been met with fierce opposition from players, leagues, and clubs who see it as a threat to the sustainability of football.
The complaint lodged to the European Commission by FIFPRO, European Leagues, and LaLiga accuses FIFA of abusing its dominant position by imposing these changes without adequate consultation or consideration of the broader football ecosystem. The complaint highlights a fundamental conflict of interest: FIFA acts both as the regulator of football and as the organizer of competitions, which creates an inherent tension between its regulatory responsibilities and its commercial ambitions.
Player Welfare: The Human Cost of Calendar Congestion
One of the most compelling arguments against FIFA’s calendar expansion comes from the perspective of player welfare. FIFPRO’s 2024 Player Workload Monitoring Report paints a stark picture of the toll that the current congested calendar is already taking on players. According to the report, 54% of monitored players experienced excessive or high workload during the 2023/24 season, with some players having more than 55 matchday squad inclusions. Notably, players like Julian Alvarez had as many as 83 squad inclusions, a figure that underscores the intense demands placed on top-level professionals.
Leading players have been vocal about the unsustainable nature of the current schedule.
“It’s impossible to be at full capacity with 72 plus games… The quality of the game drops, and we suffer, along with our families,”
said Dani Carvajal, highlighting the physical and emotional strain on players. Similarly, Pep Guardiola lamented the relentless schedule, stating,
“During 11 months it is games, games, games… We want to play football and enjoy it, but we have to reduce it. It’s too much.”
The concerns extend beyond individual players to the coaching staff and the broader football community. FIFPRO’s data shows that 78% of coaches and 72% of players support guaranteed rest periods, yet the current calendar leaves virtually no guaranteed annual breaks. The scheduling of the FIFA Club World Cup during the only available rest period exemplifies the disregard for player recovery time.
Marcelo Bielsa, head coach of Uruguay, warned of the consequences of ignoring these issues:
“Ignoring the consequences of excessive games and travel will end in injuries for any player.”
This sentiment is echoed by many in the football world who fear that the relentless expansion of fixtures will lead to a rise in injuries and a decline in the quality of play.
Economic and Competitive Sustainability: The Leagues’ Perspective
Beyond player welfare, national leagues and clubs have raised serious concerns about the economic and competitive sustainability of football under FIFA’s expanding calendar. The European leagues, represented by organizations such as European Leagues and LaLiga, argue that the congested schedule threatens the financial health and social fabric of domestic competitions.
Neil Doncaster, CEO of the Scottish Professional Football League (SPFL), emphasized the long-standing nature of calendar congestion but warned that the situation has reached a critical point:
“Calendar congestion isn’t a fresh problem… we’ve reached a saturation point and it is becoming increasingly challenging to manage domestic competitions.”
Richard Masters, CEO of the Premier League, echoed this view, stating,
“It is getting to a tipping point… The feedback we have from players is that there is too much football being played and there is constant expansion.”
These statements highlight the growing frustration among leagues that feel marginalized by FIFA’s top-down approach. The financial model of many leagues depends on maintaining a balanced and competitive schedule that keeps fans engaged and clubs financially viable. The addition of more international fixtures, especially during key domestic periods, risks diluting the quality of competitions and undermining the leagues’ commercial appeal.
Legal and Governance Challenges: The European Commission Complaint
The formal complaint to the European Commission introduces a critical legal dimension to the dispute. FIFPRO and the leagues argue that FIFA’s unilateral calendar changes violate European Union competition law by abusing its dominant market position. The complaint draws on the precedent set by the European Court of Justice’s December ruling on the Super League case, which emphasized the need for transparency, proportionality, and the neutralization of conflicts of interest in football governance.
FIFA’s dual role as both regulator and competition organizer is at the center of this legal challenge. The complaint asserts that FIFA’s decisions prioritize its commercial interests at the expense of players’ welfare and the economic interests of national leagues, which is inherently abusive. This legal framing elevates the dispute from a sporting disagreement to a matter of regulatory compliance and market fairness.
In response, FIFA has defended its position by stating that the calendar was unanimously approved by the FIFA Council, which includes representatives from all continents. FIFA argues that its calendar protects the overall interests of world football, including player protection. However, the organization has also accused some leagues of “commercial self-interest” and “hypocrisy,” suggesting a deep divide between FIFA and other football stakeholders.
The Broader Implications for Football Governance
This conflict reveals a broader crisis in football governance. The sport’s rapid globalization and commercialization have created complex challenges that require cooperation among multiple stakeholders, including players, leagues, clubs, national associations, and governing bodies. FIFA’s current approach, characterized by unilateral decision-making and commercial expansion, risks alienating key partners and destabilizing the football ecosystem.
Kylian Mbappe’s call for collaborative solutions underscores the need for a more inclusive governance model:
“We need to find a balance between the interests of players, fans, and governing bodies.”
This sentiment reflects a growing recognition that sustainable football requires dialogue, transparency, and shared decision-making.
The ongoing dispute also raises questions about the future shape of international football competitions. Expanding tournaments like the FIFA World Cup and Club World Cup may generate short-term commercial gains but could undermine the sport’s long-term health if they exacerbate player fatigue and disrupt domestic leagues.
Navigating Football’s Crossroads
FIFA’s plans to expand the international match calendar have ignited a critical debate about the future of football. The evidence from player workload reports, stakeholder statements, and legal challenges paints a picture of a sport at a crossroads. On one side is the drive for commercial growth and global expansion; on the other are the imperatives of player welfare, competitive balance, and sustainable governance.
The voices of players like Dani Carvajal and coaches like Marcelo Bielsa remind us that football is ultimately about human beings whose health and well-being must be safeguarded. The concerns of leagues and clubs highlight the importance of preserving the economic and social foundations of domestic competitions that form the backbone of the sport.
As the European Commission investigates the complaint, the football world awaits a resolution that balances these competing interests. The path forward will require FIFA to reconsider its approach, embrace transparency, and engage meaningfully with all stakeholders. Only through such collaboration can football navigate this challenging moment and secure a sustainable, vibrant future for the beautiful game.
