Football's elite can whinge all they like about fixture chaos

Each week, there are new threats and hand-wringing about the fixture list from the game’s elite participants.

After mutterings by players about industrial action, Liverpool manager Arne Slot has joined the party by questioning why his side had to play Chelsea on Sunday before a Champions League match in Leipzig on Wednesday.

According to Slot, clubs in the Netherlands are given more time between fixtures. He conveniently forgot to mention the Eredivisie only has 18 teams and that his own bumper salary is part-financed by Sky Sports paying tens and tens of millions to show matches on a Sunday.

Slot, lest we forget, has been involved in the Premier League for barely two months. He’s just the latest arrival in the land of riches who is already onto his soapbox, complaining about how maligned he and his poor charges are.

Even Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, world-class as both a player and executive, is getting fed up by the double standards. He’s pointed out, correctly, that players, managers and their agents have fallen into the trap of demanding the highest salaries without accepting the consequences of more games to balance the books.

We’re at a stage where leading players and their unions are flexing their muscles. The more they earn, the freer they feel to tell you what they don’t like.

However, you can imagine the silence if it were suggested there might be economic concessions on their part to achieve the outcome of fewer matches.

Those players want the financial spoils of being at Champions League clubs and representing their countries, which is both an honour and a way of boosting their own value.

They have even moved into the area of freedom of movement within contracts - which could at some point challenge the system more than Jean-Marc Bosman given it would render contract-length unenforceable, and therefore transfer fees worthless.

And so we go round in circles. The small minority of players playing 60-plus games a season are at big clubs that could rotate, but that would no doubt lead to complaints about sitting on the bench!

The irony is these stars do have the power to control their destiny. There are so many clauses in contracts, most offering the laughably misplaced terminology of loyalty bonuses after 12 months, so why not negotiate the number of games as a player you are prepared to play.

Heres´s why! Said superstars and their agent know it would come with an economic sting.

For many of their peers lower down the food chain, the problem is too few matches, not too many. Yet the elite are making a noise on their behalf. Three per cent are representing the rest of the industry.

Initiatives like reducing the Premier League to 18 teams is something certain clubs would like, but I’m not so sure the culled clubs and their players would appreciate that solution.

The common-sense solution is for their employers to manage resources better rather than seek outside help. Chelsea have left Cole Palmer out of their Europa Conference squad, a self-regulating way of prioritising that means no competition should have to die on the vine.

It’s right in my view that the FA Cup and League Cup remain part of our schedule rather than be sacrificial lambs. Both have a meaning and value in this country.

I think we saw the mindset of players during Covid. Clubs had no revenue coming in from live attendances and significant broadcast income reclaimed. Yet the PFA and players’ attitude to clubs was 'you’ll just have to get on with it'.

There were a few deferments from players but that is not the same as a reduction. Clubs only weathered the storm because benefactors propped them up.

That argument flows through today. The major beneficiaries of the upsizing of football finance are players but when there is talk of downing of tools, I’ve not heard any solutions suggested, only what elite players don´t want to do.

They are supported by their unions, who would likely have few members if the players had to pay the one per cent of salaries to belong as is traditional in other industries. The PFA receive £175million over 10 years from television income to relieve the 'burden' on their millionaire members.

I agree the FIFA Club World Cup is unnecessary but know why it’s been dreamed up. For one, jealousy of UEFA and the Champions League revenues, and two, tournament football is an economic godsend.

Each participating club will receive at least £60m and that’ll be passed down to the players – something that shouldn’t slip their mind.

There have been appeals about the increased risk of injury to players and a reduction in the quality of games. While I was sorry to see Rodri suffer an ACL, the injury happened after he’d had time off, so I don’t see the fatigue argument.

It’s going to be a most extreme circumstance for anyone to play 75 games a year, they’d have to be picked for every game and reach every final and play every international fixture.

Neither am I hearing broadcasters overly worried by what is being served up to them in terms of standard of matches. Indeed, we are seeing them continue their insatiable demand for even more content.

If players accept they are part of the whole ecosystem and that a reduction of games will have an implication on how they expect to be rewarded, we can start to have a genuine discussion.

But they won’t say that. The owners and stakeholders they’re at odds with are the same people they trusted to make broadcast deals which has seen them handsomely rewarded.

It seems players want all the upsides supplied by the modern game but aren’t as interested in any of the downsides, how lovely that world must be!

Maybe Slot and his brothers in arms of ingratitude should think about how bloody fortunate they really are rather than griping about his stars having to cope with the awful intrusion of playing four days apart.

NOW DO WEST HAM FANS UNDERSTAND MOYES?

West Ham have a special allure because of England World Cup winners Moore, Hurst and Peters but their own history and heritage is peripheral.

While their fans may not be thrilled with being 15th, it’s hard to argue expectations should be higher than midtable. They are certainly not a top-six Premier League club.

I don’t know what the West Ham board thought they were getting in new manager, Julen Lopetegui. If they felt he was an exponent of the free-flowing football West Ham apparently must have, they were on dodgy ground. The Spaniard has always been a pragmatist.

His predecessor David Moyes will have a wry smile. He won a trophy but it felt like the relationship had run out of wind by the end. I imagine he’d had enough of West Ham, and vice-versa.

Ironically, he also managed West Ham’s next opponents, Manchester United. He didn’t get time to stamp his mark on Old Trafford, now it appears Erik ten Hag is being given an infinite amount.

I’m sure Lopetegui interviewed well, stressing the balance between a solid base to preserve results and producing ambitious football when the opportunity presented itself. It’s an easy sales pitch to make, much harder to pull off.

Some of the dissenting fans might now understand why Moyes went safety-first to ensure West Ham became established in the Premier League.