This might be fine for the FA or FFF but it could bankrupt a smaller FA to be hit with an unexpected bill like that. At a minimum it would redirect funds from more deserving grass roots football clubs or organisations.
Basically i hate this idea on every level. The clubs can afford the wages and know all the risks involved when they hand them out.
We could have a situation where we lose Saka, Odegaard and Saliba while playing international friendlies and it cost us the title.
We pay their wages, we coach them and have to pay while they’re injured, how is that fair?
Who really cares about international friendly games?
Looking at the crowds, it’s not many.
That’s life
Yes we could absolutely loose them all, sadly. They are however not slaves and being able to represent your country is a given. It’s part of the game and the clubs know that.
I hate unnecessary international football games as much as anyone, but fining nations FA isn’t the solution.
If Saka had an injury Southgate wouldn’t have played him you’re making things up now.
It’s up to the player to decide if he’s fit at the end of the day. If Southgate made Saka play he would have gone to Arteta and told him so,there would have been hell to play.
These aren’t meaningless friendlies anymore they all go to Euro qualifying, every player wants to represent their country in a major tournament, if they keep saying they are injured during these games do you think the manager is going to pick them again.
It’s the nature of the game getting sent off or injured, do you think whoever put Merino out of action should pay his wages too?
You may not like these “friendlies” but you’re not a professional footballer, and these games take them to the top,so it’s not about what you think is right is it?
And since you didn’t answer it above, how would you measure if a player is too injured to play?
Everyone knew Saka was being overplayed yet Southgate picked him for nearly every game, often for the whole match.
A lot of supporters would agree that the games are boring, if the empty seats at a lot of the games are anything to go by.
The easy (and probably illegal) answer would be that players would agree to sign contracts which allows the clubs to cut them from the roster at any time for any reason and forfeit remaining salary. Basically the NFL system. It would make players think twice about getting hurt on international duty.
does this make sense to punish a player that wants to represent his/her own country?
Wow. That’s a fucking disgusting system.
Yeahhhh that’ll never catch on here
Also wtf is this lol
People are actually willing to sign contracts like that? The contracts wont be worth the paper they are written on.
You said he was injured when Southgate made him play.
Messi and Ronaldo play every club game and for their country and that’s just a small example.
You’re just taking it personally because it’s a player from your own club so you’re not being very rational about this.
Like i said when you’re at the top of your game you want to play no matter what. For example when I was in orchestras a large percentage of the string players were playing through pain and still gave amazing performances. If you told your maestro you were in pain you were in danger of losing your seat for good.
The difference is that a club pay the wages and coached the player to the level he’s at, while the international managers get to pick the best available without putting any investment into the player.
Like I said, these international breaks are not just disruptive they’re not even well attended.
Cool, so as I asked two times previously, how would you determine if a player was too injured to play for their country in one of these games?
NFL contracts are by and large not guaranteed. Players get a signing bonus and then a yearly salary, but the salary itself may not be guaranteed or have a base level with bonuses.
So you could have a situation where a player who is under performing get cut from a roster and the team not owe them any additional money.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that because the clubs pay the players that it’s unfair that national federations get to basically “use” employees they don’t pay and if they’re hurt while playing for the NT, it’s rarely the NT that suffers the absence because of how infrequent major tournaments are.
So what tool do the clubs have? They can’t necessarily refuse to release players and it might cause friction between the players and clubs if clubs tried to block call ups. The only chip the clubs can bargain with is money which is why I was spitballing about clubs offering contracts that contained a clause allowing players to play internationally (because they can’t block call ups afaik) but releasing the club from obligations to pay players when they’re hurt on international duty. But I just can’t see a player signing a contract that has a clause which releases the club from any obligation to player if the player gets hurt on international duty.
Guys move on. Injury can happen to anyone anytime. We are just unlucky with injuries. Look at Timber and Calafiori, or even Tomiyasu.
Guess if we had a clause to prohibit players playing for their countries, they still would sign with us.
The answer is obvious.