FIFPro’s statement claims FIFA has, for several years, refused “to develop a clear, transparent, and fair process” in their construction of the international match calendar, and instead has been making unilateral decisions. They say the situation is now unsustainable for leagues and players and allege that FIFA’s conduct is an infringement of EU competition law and is an “abuse of dominance”; with their dual role as a regulator of football and an organiser of competitions, FIFA is a living, breathing conflict of interest, they claim.

And they hinted at the decision by the EU Court of Justice late last year over the whole Super League imbroglio: the court found that FIFA and UEFA had been “abusing a dominant position” by blocking the rebel competition from getting off the ground.

The ruling didn’t validate or endorse the Super League concept, or diminish the federations’ power, but it did say that FIFA and UEFA’s conduct had to be compliant with EU law, and therefore “transparent, objective, nondiscriminatory and proportionate”. FIFPro reckons they have not been any of these things.

This action sits alongside another case submitted to the Brussels Court of Commerce last month against FIFA by the players’ associations of England, Italy and France on broadly similar grounds.

Just like most high-level disputes in the beautiful game, this is ultimately a battle for money and power: who should be allowed to run competitions, and therefore profit from them?

Wait – isn’t the Club World Cup dead?

The old version is. That was the seven-team annual tournament FIFA had run annually between 2005 and 2023, which nobody really cared about.

But Gianni Infantino has long been plotting a re-launch under a different format involving 32 teams in eight groups and staged every four years, just like the World Cup for countries. It will be played in the same slot that was once used for the definitely still-dead Confederations Cup.

And in our humble opinion, it looks fantastic, and gives an opportunity for clubs from around the world who win their respective continental tournaments – which theoretically could include an A-League team if they won the AFC Champions League – to compete in meaningful matches for a proper trophy against the big guns from Europe. The first edition will kick off next June in the United States, and qualified teams include Chelsea, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, River Plate, Flamengo, Seattle Sounders, Mamelodi Sundowns, Al-Hilal and Urawa Red Diamonds.

If Australia ever got the chance to host it would be massive.

The problem is nobody in Europe seems to care about this competition, even though it has the potential to enrich football globally, and the steps taken by FIFPro and European Leagues are a pretty clear sign that players and clubs from that part of the world don’t want to participate, and aren’t happy with the way FIFA have gone about things. And you can’t have a tournament without players and clubs.

How has FIFA responded?

Fairly strongly, with a stern 122-word statement you can read in full below. But here are the crucial bits.

“FIFA’s calendar is the only instrument ensuring that international football can continue to survive, co-exist, and prosper alongside domestic and continental club football,” it says.

“Some leagues in Europe – themselves competition organisers and regulators – are acting with commercial self-interest, hypocrisy, and without consideration to everyone else in the world. Those leagues apparently prefer a calendar filled with friendlies and summer tours, often involving extensive global travel. By contrast, FIFA must protect the overall interests of world football, including the protection of players, everywhere and at all levels of the game.”

And frankly, FIFA has a point. Although they are partly responsible for the calendar crunch, by introducing a bigger Club World Cup and a bigger World Cup (48 teams from 2026), they’re not alone.

UEFA has introduced the Nations League and from next season is increasing the number of teams and matches involved for the Champions, Europa and Conference Leagues.

Loading

And of course, as FIFA’s statement mentions, any opportunity that clubs get, they will fly to any given destination on the planet for an utterly meaningless and usually boring pre- or post-season friendly, so long as it makes them money – and they never seem to complain about the impact that has on players.

FIFA types have also pointed to a recent study by the CIES Football Observatory which suggests that clubs are actually not playing more matches per season these days. Anecdotally, however, most players will tell you that they feel more overworked than ever before.

It’s a hard square to circle. Something has to give, and soon, it will.