Gundogan not a fan of CL new format

GovanFront4 said:
I don't doubt that the big clubs, Juve especially, were trying to get their best out of the new reform, but saying it was an appeasement isn't the case. How can you offer an appeasement before UEFA even know a breakaway is ready to be announced?
Click to expand...
Since about 2010, every reform to the Champions League format has been dictated by the big clubs with the implicit ultimatum of "Do as we say or we will leave and form a Super League".

Every time they have been appeased. It's been a constant threat every single time and every single time more and more concessions have been made to help out the "Top Four" Leagues.

More guaranteed spaces at the expense of nations like the Netherlands/Greece/Ukraine/Scotland, giving them automatic coefficient bonuses for "reaching" the group stage, making Champions League coefficients worth more then Europa League coefficients, making it so teams get "legacy payments" from the pot based on their coefficient over the last 10 years in Europe, changing the weighting of TV income so higher amounts go to the Top Four leagues based on "Viewing figures" rather than equitable payments.

A lot of these things have changed so much in the last 10 years, all because of guys like Agnelli at the ECA running into UEFA and saying "If you don't do this then who knows? Maybe we'll go and create a Super League"
 
ShieldsBear said:
I might be miles off it but I'm going to suggest that a premier league footballer who goes through the schedule season after season is likely to know more about the demands and whether the human body is capable of performing over the Follow Follow know it alls. :))
Click to expand...

We played what, 68 games the Manchester season? Do city come close to that even if they get to the final of each competition?
 
WinkieWATP said:
Are players careers being shortened? I don’t think so. Players are far fitter than ever before and playing longer if anything. The likes of Liverpool when they were dominating Europe would have used a core of 14/15 players back in the 80s and those players were not playing on the bowling greens they are today either.
Click to expand...

True and I do agree to a point - but I wouldn’t say the game was played at close to the same pace it is today in reference to the liverpool teams of the 70’s/80’s. If players had the lifestyles they did then nowadays they simply wouldn’t be near the top - there are no heavy drinkers and/or smokers playing top level football right now.

Sports science has definitely advanced to a point where players careers have been elongated, but that won’t continue if you keep adding games on the schedule. If you’re a top player right now you’re potentially looking at 3 tournaments in the next 4 year years as well thanks to the condensed schedule due to covid/Qatar World Cup, so I can understand Gundogan and other players worrying about burn out and querying the merits of adding games to the fixture list.

I guess I just think if you keep pushing players limits with the speed the game is played at these days, eventually we will hit a breaking point where human bodies can’t cope with playing every game and the quality of play will drop as a result.
 
Ancelotti would seem to agree with him, he was complaining about football figureheads not consulting with managers and players, particularly around the number of games they're potentially required to play. Don't think it's that players aren't capable but the standards are hard to maintain if you are playing twice a week all season, not including internationals.
 
Players and managers have been complaining for a while about the amount of games they have to play in the modern era. Maybe it's time we listened. Well rested players produce better football, which leads to higher octane games and less injuries.

How often does it get to the summer of a World Cup/Euros and we've got several star players, who are either touch and go injury wise or out injured for the entire tournament?
 
He is right, more and more games can be exhausting.

But I feel as if I can't really feel too sorry for him (or other players) given that he for example is on £140k a week. In my current job I would need to work for almost 4 years to get that amount.
 
ClubFootZzZ said:
It’s easy and tempting to resort to they earn x amount why are they complaining takes, but ultimately they are only human and he’s spot on that the addition of more games to the football calendar will ultimately diminish the quality of the game and see players careers shortened with injuries to players increasing. Any changes to the football calendar at the moment should be seeing fixtures reduced, not adding to the workload that players have.

The new CL format is also fundamentally stupid for many other reasons, but to add more games to the calendar to appease the bigger clubs seems daft, especially when managers like Pep and Klopp have already been complaining at the volume of games they face. The proposed ESL would’ve seen even more games added to the calendar, it is frankly unsustainable how often clubs are going to be asking their top players to play if the trend for more fixtures continues in the direction it’s going.
Click to expand...
I assume they’re not extending the season by 4 weeks to accommodate these extra games? In the first half of a season the bigger teams are going to be playing a lot of games with the league, CL and domestic cups. This plus the travelling to away games impacts on the players. It will dilute the quality and increase the likely hood of injuries as has been pointed out. This and throw in the delayed Euros and then a mid season WC next year and it’s madness IMO.
 
Maybe he should try playing 6 qualifying games, 6 CL group games, ending third and dropping to the Europa and having to play another 9 games to get to the final (something like that)
 
Hawftimepie said:
What a fucking fanny.

The new format is terrible but not for that reason. Players should be eagar for games, appreciate the competition. Complaining about this aspect just makes him look a right pampered knob.
Click to expand...
Hes got a point . Too many games is diluting the importance of the games and burning out players who cant be at 100% 3 games a week.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Footballers are so out of touch with reality it is not funny. Coddled from 12 years old, never having to do a day's work in their life, handed the best of everything for free.
Click to expand...
A prescient point, I'm not trying to glamorize poverty but if you've "made it" from when you're very young then you need to have a special mindset to keep improving. Even in living memory things have changed so much. Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and even our own Steven Gerrard all came from humble backgrounds to become the greatest.
 
giphy.gif
 
A lot of people are missing the point that these Champions League reforms will affect us.

The fans of the bigger English clubs have already realised "Oh, that means the League cup is no longer viable" because there isn't enough time in the football calendar to schedule 10 pre-knockout Champions League games before christmas, a 38 game season, a domestic cup, international fixtures and a League Cup.

On the hierarchy of fixtures, UEFA will to play an additional 2-4 pointless, dead rubber "Swiss System" games in the Champions League when we could be playing games that actually matter.
 
SecondBestIsNothing said:
“We should care more about people’s mental health”
“Money can’t buy happiness”
“You’re on £100k p/w. Quit complaining”
Lovely ironic cycle there.
Click to expand...
You have completely the wrong cycle here;

Player; I want more money. Much more.
Clubs; Ok, we will pay you, but we need more money from UEFA, much more.
UEFA; Ok, we can do that, but to do that, we need you to play a maximum of 4 more games to sell to the broadcasters to get the money in, in order to pay you.
Player; Woah there a second...Won't somebody think of the players?!!? But, I still want all that lovely money...


This increase is a fucking direct result of over-paid cuntos wanting to be over-paid cuntos with a bit more cash every week. Nothing more and nothing less, so this idea that we should feel for them having to do their fucking job a little bit more, when the reason they need to do it a little bit more is 100% down to the fact they are all greedy fucking cunts is absurd. And then bringing mental health issues into it? If they want a better quality of life, for less work, then please, by all means, feel free to stop being a footballer on several hundred grand a week. If it is too stressful having to do your fucking job, do a different job.
 
GovanFront4 said:
It's been slaughtered on here all week then a player criticises it and he gets slaughtered I'm honestly not sure what people want footballers to say.
Click to expand...

He's not mentioned the specific issue that those on here were upset with.

He's gone down the 'too many games for us players' route, which was always going to result in mockery, the pampered big bitch.
 
He’s right that the ESL was a distraction to make the changes to the UCL appear more reasonable and acceptable.
 
It's the international games that cause more issues than anything else. The domestic cups can easily be adjusted to compensate those teams in Europe by letting them enter at a later round.
 
He's totally right.

The new format increases the number of games for no reason other than to make money. I think I read that it now takes an extra 100 games to reduce the number of teams to the same amount. That is absolutely absurd.

In their long pre-season exhibition games and their increasingly meaningless European games, modern footballers have now taken on the mantle of becoming modern day circus performers, trotted out to act for a different crowd every night.

I think it was Spike Lee who said that the greatest basketball player in the world is still just an exploited commodity.

Because the job as a footballer isn't as physically taxing as your job as a manual labourer doesn't mean that moaning about an extra set of needless fixtures isn't a valid concern. Being a footballer is still a job at the end of the day.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
He's totally right.

The new format increases the number of games for no reason other than to make money. I think I read that it now takes an extra 100 games to reduce the number of teams to the same amount. That is absolutely absurd.

In their long pre-season exhibition games and their increasingly meaningless European games, modern footballers have now taken on the mantle of becoming modern day circus performers, trotted out to act for a different crowd every night.

I think it was Spike Lee who said that the greatest basketball player in the world is still just an exploited commodity.

Because the job as a footballer isn't as physically taxing as your job as a manual labourer doesn't mean that moaning about an extra set of needless fixtures isn't a valid concern. Being a footballer is still a job at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Why do clubs need to earn more money? To pay the wages the players are demanding. They cannot continually demand massive wages and get annoyed when that involves more work for them. The money they are demanding does not appear out of thin air and with all bar 2 English clubs spending more money on wages than anything else, 7 clubs spending over 70% of their revenue on wages and an average of around 65% of all EPL revenue leaving into the pockets of players, it is not difficult to understand that more money is always needed when the players are demanding more money. How do they think their increasing salaries are going to be paid for?
 
dh1963 said:
The best crosser of a ball I've ever seen :))
Click to expand...

Not only that, his passing was something we could really do with now, accurate and generally the pasee (this is probably not a word) didn't have to break stride (a thing that drives me nuts with our present team) to collect it.
 
The players are generally in a union, why don't they represent their members better and strike? People will argue they get paid enough so they should just do it but there's only so much the body can take.

Unless you get to the stage where you have an American football size squad.
 
Steven said:
The players are generally in a union, why don't they represent their members better and strike? People will argue they get paid enough so they should just do it but there's only so much the body can take.

Unless you get to the stage where you have an American football size squad.
Click to expand...
And strike when they next want a pay-rise? They need to understand that their wages directly relate to the income they generate and if they want to increase their wages they need to increase the product being sold.

The average EPL wage in 2010 was £28k per week. Today it is £70k per week. Salary has more than doubled and TV money makes that possible. TV money is dependent on how many games are played so the cold hard fact of the matter is, if they want to continue to increase their earning, they need to continue to increase the number of games they play. If they want to reduce the number of games they play, they need to reduce the amount of cash they are demanding. But that would lead to more strike action!
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
You have completely the wrong cycle here;

Player; I want more money. Much more.
Clubs; Ok, we will pay you, but we need more money from UEFA, much more.
UEFA; Ok, we can do that, but to do that, we need you to play a maximum of 4 more games to sell to the broadcasters to get the money in, in order to pay you.
Player; Woah there a second...Won't somebody think of the players?!!? But, I still want all that lovely money...


This increase is a fucking direct result of over-paid cuntos wanting to be over-paid cuntos with a bit more cash every week. Nothing more and nothing less, so this idea that we should feel for them having to do their fucking job a little bit more, when the reason they need to do it a little bit more is 100% down to the fact they are all greedy fucking cunts is absurd. And then bringing mental health issues into it? If they want a better quality of life, for less work, then please, by all means, feel free to stop being a footballer on several hundred grand a week. If it is too stressful having to do your fucking job, do a different job.
Click to expand...
Your point is based on either assumptions or facts, if it is facts. Can you please prove to me how much work they have to do?

Also, I’m bringing mental health into it because of guys like Lingard, Maddison and Sordell, 3 current/former players who speak about how life as a footballer isn’t always as great as folk assume.

You might go “aww have real life problems like the rest of us” but if that’s your logic, then many of the things you and I will probably moan about (can’t get to the pub or on holiday, etc) we can’t moan about because we’re much more privileged than folk in 3rd world countries.

Footballers in general take massive pride in their work, as they should, I know that for a fact from those who I’ve spoken to (no one big time but they’ve played at a respectable level). They don’t want to get injured and they don’t want their form to be influenced by playing too often and you only have to look at Liverpool to see that can happen.
 
No-one's forcing them to play every game.

Too many games?

Rotate. The. Squad.


He plays in one of the best squad's in the league with a manager who's always resting players.

God help him if he's the top player in his team's midfield and is always needed.

It's worth noting that he averages 74 mins a game in the EPL and has appeared in 25 games (out of 33).
 
Last edited:
SecondBestIsNothing said:
Your point is based on either assumptions or facts, if it is facts. Can you please prove to me how much work they have to do?

Also, I’m bringing mental health into it because of guys like Lingard, Maddison and Sordell, 3 current/former players who speak about how life as a footballer isn’t always as great as folk assume.

You might go “aww have real life problems like the rest of us” but if that’s your logic, then many of the things you and I will probably moan about (can’t get to the pub or on holiday, etc) we can’t moan about because we’re much more privileged than folk in 3rd world countries.

Footballers in general take massive pride in their work, as they should, I know that for a fact from those who I’ve spoken to (no one big time but they’ve played at a respectable level). They don’t want to get injured and they don’t want their form to be influenced by playing too often and you only have to look at Liverpool to see that can happen.
Click to expand...
Eh? You have not understood the points made to you at all.

The reason they are asked to play more is because they want more and more money. That is it. If they stopped demanding bigger wage packets, they would not be forcing their clubs to bring in ever more cash, and that would reduce the need to play more games. If there was a universal salary cap of (say) £50k per week, clubs could hire more players, there would be no need to increase revenue year after year and the players would not be run into the ground. They are being run into the ground because THEY demand high wages. It is utterly laughable that they then, off the back of having to play more games to service their own greed, complain about the workload.

It is entirely a symbiotic relationship between wages and number of games needing to be played. They want one to go up and the other to go down.

The mental health issue is NOT something the player brought up, it is something YOU are shoehorning into the discussion, for absolutely no reason at all.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Why do clubs need to earn more money? To pay the wages the players are demanding. They cannot continually demand massive wages and get annoyed when that involves more work for them. The money they are demanding does not appear out of thin air and with all bar 2 English clubs spending more money on wages than anything else, 7 clubs spending over 70% of their revenue on wages and an average of around 65% of all EPL revenue leaving into the pockets of players, it is not difficult to understand that more money is always needed when the players are demanding more money. How do they think their increasing salaries are going to be paid for?
Click to expand...

I think your post is predicated on the idea that footballers' wages represent a massive, ongoing issue which can almost only be solved by having them play extra games.

In actual fact, the demands made by footballers to their football clubs have been met for years, and they've been met under conditions that, in the Champions' League at least, have been unchanged since 2003: one group phase with eight groups, with the winners and runners-ups advancing to the last 16.

If the restructuring of the Champions' League kicks in in 2024, that represents 21 years of players being required to play the same number of games during a time in which the top footballers' wages have increased by more than - get this - 1500%.

There's perhaps an argument to be made that we've reached a point where wages have become so astronomical that the only recourse is to play more games but I think that's undermined by the fact that we're in the age of the super-club, and that clubs like Manchester City and PSG are essentially bankrolled by countries as part of an organised sportswashing programme. PSG owners are worth an estimated 338 billion. It seems a bit rich (lol) asking players to take part in four extra games a year to ensure that they've got enough bob to give Neymar (for whom they paid 222 million euro) a few extra quid a week.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
I think your post is predicated on the idea that footballers' wages represent a massive, ongoing issue which can almost only be solved by having them play extra games.

In actual fact, the demands made by footballers to their football clubs have been met for years, and they've been met under conditions that, in the Champions' League at least, have been unchanged since 2003: one group phase with eight groups, with the winners and runners-ups advancing to the last 16.

If the restructuring of the Champions' League kicks in in 2024, that represents 21 years of players being required to play the same number of games during a time in which the top footballers' wages have increased by more than - get this - 1500%.

There's perhaps an argument to be made that we've reached a point where wages have become so astronomical that the only recourse is to play more games but I think that's undermined by the fact that we're in the age of the super-club, and that clubs like Manchester City and PSG are essentially bankrolled by countries as part of an organised sportswashing programme. PSG owners are worth an estimated 338 billion. It seems a bit rich (lol) asking players to take part in four extra games a year to ensure that they've got enough bob to give Neymar (for whom they paid 222 million euro) a few extra quid a week.
Click to expand...
Wait, so to give players more money, the clubs should not pay it, the owners should?

Gotcha...:oops:

How about the players halt the mad rush to earn millions and millions, forcing football to find ever more ways of bringing in more cash to service their greed?
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Wait, so to give players more money, the clubs should not pay it, the owners should?

Gotcha...:oops:
Click to expand...

I'm a bit lost here - unless you think I've not adequately separated out the difference between concepts like owners, investment groups and clubs themselves - but also a bit miffed that's all you've taken from the post.
 
What a wee shame for "us players".
Imagine training for 4 days then given a day off when the team plays.
And you only get 140k a week.
My heart bleeds for you

















Wånk
 
Poor wee poppet worried about playing too much football for his money,

Doug Jarvis played 964 games in a row in the NHL. Never missed a single game in his entire career.
Gary Unger played 914.
Patrick Marleau (who I fucking hate) is still playing in the NHL and is on 900. Marleau is still currently playing in the NHL at 41 years old and hasn't missed a game since 09/04/2009.

Gundogan needs to grow a set.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
I'm a bit lost here - unless you think I've not adequately separated out the difference between concepts like owners, investment groups and clubs themselves - but also a bit miffed that's all you've taken from the post.
Click to expand...
Miffed? Fair enough.

1, I think your post is predicated on the idea that footballers' wages represent a massive, ongoing issue which can almost only be solved by having them play extra games.

Footballers wages are a massive and ongoing problem. They are the single biggest drain on money and nothing comes remotely close. The post is predicated on that, certainly. The idea I think that extra games are the only way to address the need is plain wrong. It is the most obvious, easiest and likely to work. Every extra game generates millions in TV revenue with millions more in sponsorship. Extra games are not the ONLY way to address the issue, but they are the most logical and most likely to make a dent.

2, In actual fact, the demands made by footballers to their football clubs have been met for years, and they've been met under conditions that, in the Champions' League at least, have been unchanged since 2003: one group phase with eight groups, with the winners and runners-ups advancing to the last 16.

If the restructuring of the Champions' League kicks in in 2024, that represents 21 years of players being required to play the same number of games during a time in which the top footballers' wages have increased by more than - get this - 1500%.

Football wage demands have steadily risen for 2 decades and they have more than doubled in the last decade. The wage demands have been met by, well, increased TV revenue which has, in the most part, been funded by what? That's right...more 'meaningful' games at CL and EL level (same number of games, fewer dead games, more games where top teams are guaranteed to feature. The exact thing we all bemoan as 'outsiders'. Now that that phase has been milked absolutely dry, there is another re-format and seeing as it is already designed to maximise the number of big games, the only real avenue is maximising the total number of games. This is simply a continuation of that.

That is, when wages HAVE been met by revenue generated. The ESL idea was spawned primarily by clubs several BILLION in debt through, you guessed it, over inflated wage bills to players. The Spanish clubs literally told you that funding player salaries was the driver behind the ESL.

3, There's perhaps an argument to be made that we've reached a point where wages have become so astronomical that the only recourse is to play more games but I think that's undermined by the fact that we're in the age of the super-club, and that clubs like Manchester City and PSG are essentially bankrolled by countries as part of an organised sportswashing programme. PSG owners are worth an estimated 338 billion. It seems a bit rich (lol) asking players to take part in four extra games a year to ensure that they've got enough bob to give Neymar (for whom they paid 222 million euro) a few extra quid a week.

Here you literally say that clubs should not have to pay higher wages, and players should not have to earn higher wages, rich owners should be paying it...


However, if your only real argument against more games for more money is that we are in the age of the super-club, you are arguing from a really indefensible position. Everyone else should do something in order to keep paying more and more to the players? How about not doing that, getting the game back under some kind of control and taking away the need to add games (or find other ways to keep paying them more and more)?



The extra games are there for one single reason and that reason is to generate the clubs extra cash. The clubs want the extra cash in order to pay their players more and this is self evident, it is genuinely where the money is going.

That leaves a really nice little logic loop that says more cash = more games = more cash = more games and you are arguing that it is somehow unfair on the players in that situation? Fine, absolutely fine. Salary cap and cap on the number of games played, with the latter being worked out off the back of the former.





Put your hand on your heart and tell me how many players you think are turning down an extra £20k a week, just over a million a year, because the trade off is 360 minutes more football?

'Not fucking one of them', is the answer.


edit; tried to tidy it up a little, format hard to follow. Was better when it was easy to wrap text in bubbles!
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Footballers wages are a massive and ongoing problem. They are the single biggest drain on money and nothing comes remotely close. The post is predicated on that, certainly. The idea I think that extra games are the only way to address the need is plain wrong. It is the most obvious, easiest and likely to work. Every extra game generates millions in TV revenue with millions more in sponsorship. Extra games are not the ONLY way to address the issue, but they are the most logical and most likely to make a dent.

Football wage demands have steadily risen for 2 decades and they have more than doubled in the last decade. The wage demands have been met by, well, increased TV revenue which has, in the most part, been funded by what? That's right...more 'meaningful' games at CL and EL level (same number of games, fewer dead games, more games where top teams are guaranteed to feature. The exact thing we all bemoan as 'outsiders'. Now that that phase has been milked absolutely dry, there is another re-format and seeing as it is already designed to maximise the number of big games, the only real avenue is maximising the total number of games. This is simply a continuation of that.

That is, when wages HAVE been met by revenue generated. The ESL idea was spawned primarily by clubs several BILLION in debt through, you guessed it, over inflated wage bills to players. The Spanish clubs literally told you that funding player salaries was the driver behind the ESL.

Here you literally say that clubs should not have to pay higher wages, and players should not have to earn higher wages, rich owners should be paying it...

However, if your only real argument against more games for more money is that we are in the age of the super-club, you are arguing from a really indefensible position. Everyone else should do something in order to keep paying more and more to the players? How about not doing that, getting the game back under some kind of control and taking away the need to add games (or find other ways to keep paying them more and more)?

The extra games are there for one single reason and that reason is to generate the clubs extra cash. The clubs want the extra cash in order to pay their players more and this is self evident, it is genuinely where the money is going.

That leaves a really nice little logic loop that says more cash = more games = more cash = more games and you are arguing that it is somehow unfair on the players in that situation? Fine, absolutely fine. Salary cap and cap on the number of games played, with the latter being worked out off the back of the former.

Put your hand on your heart and tell me how many players you think are turning down an extra £20k a week, just over a million a year, because the trade off is 360 minutes more football?

'Not fucking one of them', is the answer.
Click to expand...

Statistics indicate that elite European teams spend a considerable amount of their turnover on wages, correct. Increasing the number of games that elite Champions' League clubs play - which essentially amounts to an increase in their working hours - would surely only mean that footballers on existing high wages would ask for more, in accordance with improved revenue coming from TV, sponsors and gate receipts. That turnover to wages ratio remains, in all probability, very similar. Vast, sweeping changes are required in football; I can't foresee your scenario where wages are met by revenue by playing and additional five games.

And it's these five games that are probably part of the problem - the Champions' League is a stagnant, predictable affair, with the same teams routinely making up the last 16, and there are indications that viewing figures have, for the group stages at least, dropped. Given the impossibility of bigger teams not making it through to the last 16, it's hard to see how asking fans to watch an additional 100 games is going to reverse what looks like declining interest in these early rounds.

The next section was a reference to the sheer money at PSG - given that their owners are an investment group, it seemed pretty clear that the main point there was the amount of money they've thrown into the club, but perhaps not. I'm not entirely sure how I suggested that footballers don't need to work more for their money, but earning more for playing the same number of games has been the trend for the last 20 years.

I'm absolutely aghast at the state of modern football and am deeply passionate about a massive redistribution of wealth and making it as democratic and equitable sport as possible. I would have replied to that in your previous post had your edit not came too late.

I also doubt that in the event of increased wages they would turn down these proposals. I doubt Gundogan would have tweeted his message if he knew that his wages would increase in accordance to the extra revenue that this would generate his club.
 
ClockworkOrange said:
Statistics indicate that elite European teams spend a considerable amount of their turnover on wages, correct. Increasing the number of games that elite Champions' League clubs play - which essentially amounts to an increase in their working hours - would surely only mean that footballers on existing high wages would ask for more, in accordance with improved revenue coming from TV, sponsors and gate receipts. That turnover to wages ratio remains, in all probability, very similar. Vast, sweeping changes are required in football; I can't foresee your scenario where wages are met by revenue by playing and additional five games.

And it's these five games that are probably part of the problem - the Champions' League is a stagnant, predictable affair, with the same teams routinely making up the last 16, and there are indications that viewing figures have, for the group stages at least, dropped. Given the impossibility of bigger teams not making it through to the last 16, it's hard to see how asking fans to watch an additional 100 games is going to reverse what looks like declining interest in these early rounds.

The next section was a reference to the sheer money at PSG - given that their owners are an investment group, it seemed pretty clear that the main point there was the amount of money they've thrown into the club, but perhaps not. I'm not entirely sure how I suggested that footballers don't need to work more for their money, but earning more for playing the same number of games has been the trend for the last 20 years.

I'm absolutely aghast at the state of modern football and am deeply passionate about a massive redistribution of wealth and making it as democratic and equitable sport as possible. I would have replied to that in your previous post had your edit not came too late.

I also doubt that in the event of increased wages they would turn down these proposals. I doubt Gundogan would have tweeted his message if he knew that his wages would increase in accordance to the extra revenue that this would generate his club.
Click to expand...
You are working from the premise that wages have gone up in line with increased finances. I am working from the premise that wage increases have forced clubs to find extra cash, such as outside investment or several billions of debt. You think that the extra games will lead to players wanting more money, I think that players wanting more money is something that happens regardless of how many games they play and that is the driving factor behind more games being created.

For someone who wants sweeping changes, you are mighty reluctant to concede that players and their wages are the root cause of these issues and are the first people who would, by necessity, be targeted in your redistribution of wealth
. It is bizarre you see 4 games spread over a season as something worth the players complaining about, while agreeing with the fact their demands are the single biggest drain on finances.

It genuinely is as simple as telling them that if they want fewer games, they get less money. If they want more money, they need to justify it in real terms and in the absence of anything workable, that is more games.
 
It’s hardly like he’s a boxer getting asked to fight and get his head kicked in twice a week.

console yourself tosh your giant pile of cash ffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top