In a significant turn of events, the global soccer landscape is seeing mounting resistance against FIFA’s increasingly congested match calendar. The latest clash is over the proposed expansion of the Club World Cup in 2025. Players’ union FIFPro, alongside the European Leagues, which represents 39 divisions including Serie A, Premier League, and La Liga, has filed a legal complaint against FIFA. They are accusing the governing body of abusing its role as both a tournament organizer and a regulator.
This move marks the most recent chapter in the ongoing dispute between FIFA and various stakeholders. Particularly, over the intense demands being placed on players and clubs. The complaint underscores growing concerns that the soccer calendar is oversaturated with matches. This eventually leads to burnout, injuries, and reduced recovery time for players.
FIFPro and the European Leagues have now taken their concerns to the European Commission in Brussels. They have filed an unprecedented antitrust complaint against FIFA. According to Alexander Bielefeld, FIFPro’s director of policy, this move challenges the legality of FIFA’s unilateral decisions concerning the international match calendar. The crux of the matter lies in FIFA’s decision to introduce and schedule the expanded 2025 Club World Cup. The tournament will take place in the United States from June 15 to July 13, 2025.
The decision to expand the Club World Cup comes amidst an already overloaded fixture schedule. There is also the expansion of competitions such as the Champions League, Europa League, and Conference League. FIFPro and European top leagues argue that FIFA has continually imposed additional games without consultation. Thus, further claiming that that they are pushing players to their physical and mental limits. The plan to hold the Club World Cup during the European summer would leave many players with little time off between seasons, aggravating the problem.
European front unites against FIFA Club World Cup
This legal action has drawn comparisons to the failed European Super League project. There, stakeholders across Europe banded together to resist a proposed breakaway competition. Javier Tebas, president of La Liga, described the complaint against FIFA as “one of the most important days in football.” He emphasized the importance of changing how soccer institutions are governed, warning that “we’re not going to let it get away.”
Similarly, Richard Masters, Premier League boss, echoed the sentiment, stating that the sport has reached a “tipping point.” Mathieu Moreuil, the Premier League’s director of international relations, also issued a warning. “The message we have together is very similar: enough is enough, we can’t take it anymore.” According to Moreuil, legal action was the only remaining option after FIFA repeatedly refused to consult with stakeholders about their concerns regarding the overburdened calendar.
The Premier League, Serie A, and other top European leagues have not expanded the number of domestic matches in the last two decades. Instead, as Luigi De Siervo, CEO of Serie A, noted, the pressure on players has come primarily from FIFA and UEFA. “While UEFA had significant consultation with all the parties involved, FIFA imposed its new format without any discussion, consultation or accepting any kind of rapport with the organizers of other competitions.”
Player overload and potential strike action
Concerns over player workload have dominated discussions in football over recent seasons. Prominent players and coaches have called for reforms to reduce the number of games and allow players more rest. The pressure to play high-stakes matches with minimal respite between seasons has increased injuries and mental exhaustion.
Manchester City midfielder Rodri recently voiced his frustration. He said players are “close” to going on strike due to the increasing burden placed on them. His comments highlight a broader sentiment among players, who have been at the forefront of advocating for more reasonable schedules. Despite these calls, FIFA’s actions indicate little regard for the players’ welfare. Their latest moves prioritize commercial gain over the long-term health and well-being of athletes.
