FIFPro, Europe’s big leagues vs. FIFA: The battle over soccer’s calendar explained

BRUSSELS — On Monday, in a nondescript conference room on the east side of Belgium’s capital, the raging battle over player workload took a turn into the legal arena.

The amount of football demanded of top players has been one of the hottest topics in the game in recent seasons, with players and coaches repeatedly urging organisers to condense the schedule and allow players more rest.

Last month, the debate went further, with Manchester City star and Spain international Rodri saying players are “close” to going on strike over the issue. It was re-ignited again when Rodri tore his ACL weeks later, in a 2-2 draw vs. Arsenal on Sept. 22, in what was his 67th appearance since the beginning of the 2023-24 season in August of last year.

The finger-pointing over who is to blame for the number of games has been fought through microphones and talking heads. Now, as is increasingly common in football, it will be played out through legal teams and court filings.

On Monday, the worldwide players’ union (Fédération Internationale des Associations de Footballeurs Professionnels, known as FIFPro) and the European Leagues — the latter representing 37 domestic leagues — jointly filed an antitrust complaint against FIFA at the European Commission in Brussels in which they argue global football’s governing body is abusing its right as both a tournament organiser and regulator. Those groups also held a news conference at Brussels’ Résidence Palace, during which league chiefs and player union leaders laid out their case against FIFA and explained why they’re bringing this action now.

Their hope is to get the Commission to rule in their favour and force FIFA to consult with players and leagues on the international match calendar. It is a legal battle that could take years to resolve, but one that will have an impact on the sport and where scheduling power lies.

---

Q. How will legal action solve anything?

There has been a sense among Europe’s major leagues and inside FIFPro that this was their only course of action.

“We sent more than 20 letters to FIFA without much reply,” Mathieu Moreuil, Premier League director of international football relations said. “We have no other choice. Legal action is the only option.”

After years of frustration and debate among players, the unions and domestic European League believe this legal battle could force FIFA to stop making decisions by itself regarding the schedule.

FIFPro and the European Leagues are asking the European Commission to enforce what it says it already has rights as a stakeholder to do: Have a say in the international match calendar. Should the Commission side against FIFA, it could mean that domestic leagues and player unions would have to agree to the expansion of competitions such as the Club World Cup, which would without doubt lead to a clear, if slight, shift in power.

Sources have told ESPN that FIFPro are ardently against cosmetic change. Instead, it is seeking a collective bargaining agreement-style cooperation with FIFA over the calendar.

“Today is one of the most important days in football,” LaLiga president Javier Tebas said. “For me, there’s been two historical days in football. One in 2019 when we stopped a reform of the Super League, and today we’ve taken a very important step in what we believe is the path of changing the governance of football institutions and we’re not going to let this opportunity get away.”

What is FIFA’s counter-argument?

For its part, soccer’s ruling body mirrors the claims against them and points the finger back at the leagues themselves.

“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,” it said in July in a statement when the antitrust complaint was first announced. “Those leagues apparently prefer a calendar filled with friendlies and summer tours, often involving extensive global travel.”

FIFA could even argue they’re not really the ones to blame, as the majority of a player’s matches in a league season are played domestically — there are just 11 international windows between the ongoing one this week and the 2026 World Cup, representing a total of 20 games (not including continental tournaments like the 2025 Concacaf Gold Cup and 2025 Africa Cup of Nations) for those players selected. A source told ESPN that FIFA believes next summer’s month-long Club World Cup — set to involve 32 teams from six confederations — will have a minimal impact on the football calendar or on player welfare, given it will be held once every four years and feature a maximum of seven games for any team that reaches the final.

FIFA also argues that its most recent calendar, set through to 2030, was approved by its council which “included FIFPRO and league bodies.”

“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,” FIFA added in the July statement. They also declined to respond when approached for comment by ESPN on Monday.

FIFPro and the European Leagues contend the above claims, saying the council — which was set up following the failed European Super League — only met once and never had the power to properly disapprove the Club World Club.

There is a disagreement, too, over whether players are really overworked. A recent analysis published by Opta shows that, while Manchester City played the most games last season (59), the majority of teams in Europe played fewer than 50 matches, with five Premier League sides playing 42 games last season — just four more than the full domestic league season. Another recent paper by CIES Football Observatory found there is only a minor difference in the number of games players play per season compared to previous decades.

However, a source at FIFPro argues those figures are skewed. The union’s own research said that 72% of players are in support of reducing the calendar and ensuring a mandated rest period, as well as data that says 17% of players made over 55 appearances last season and 30% had a sequence of six “back-to-back” matches.

Could this legal action stop next summer’s Club World Cup?

Many footballing figures aligned with of the unions and European leagues cite the scheduling of next summer’s Club World Cup as the watershed moment when legal action was deemed necessary.

“It is getting to a tipping point,” Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said in a statement. “The feedback we have from players is that there is too much football being played and there is constant expansion.

“The Premier League hasn’t changed shape. What has changed over the last few decades is the march of international and regional football competitions.”

However, the Club World Cup tournament in the U.S., with 12 venues hosting the action from June 15-July 13, is likely to go ahead as planned, with sources telling ESPN that the legal battle will almost certainly not be completed in time.

The antitrust complaint was filed Monday, meaning the Commission will now notify FIFA within the next 10 days and give it a chance to respond. Preliminary investigations will follow from there, though it can take four months for the Commission to reply with its initial assessment and even longer for a case to be heard. It all means that FIFA’s Club World Cup, which is due to kick off on June 15, 2025, is not far enough in the future to be impacted.

A source told ESPN that although the Club World Cup has been deemed “the step too far” for those figures involved in this legal challenge, the aim with Monday’s complaint is for wider, more lasting consultation on the matchday calendar rather than a bid simply to call off next summer’s tournament.

There is also a suggestion that the whole disagreement over the Club World Cup could have been avoided. A source told ESPN that FIFPro stands firmly against the scheduling of the tournament in its current form, but would have been open to discuss how it could have found a better place for the event within the football calendar.

Why take action against FIFA?

The makeup of this complaint is important. It is alleging that FIFA, which acts as both a ruling body and a tournament organiser, is abusing its dominance for its own self-interest. FIFPro and the European League argue that conflict of interest has led FIFA to disregard player safety and sanction its own competitions so it can make more money.

This isn’t the only legal challenge against FIFA, either. Domestic players unions in England, France and Italy took legal action against the governing body at the Brussels Court of Commerce in June and they are attempting to have the case tried at the European Court of Justice.

That case centres on employment law and players’ rights to holiday. One of their aims is to have a mandated rest period — between three to four weeks per year — for players to recuperate. It says FIFA placed the Club World Cup right at the exact time when that rest period would be a more suitable course of action.

Why was UEFA not included alongside FIFA in the legal action?

It is a good question, and one that Monday’s news conference didn’t necessarily answer confidently.

FIFA are not the only ones that have expanded their competitions. UEFA controversially changed the group stages of the Champions League, Europa League and Conference League which meant adding two more games to the schedule. UEFA also added more international fixtures through its Nations League competition. However, a source told ESPN that FIFPro and the European Leagues describe UEFA as an organiser rather than a regulator too, like FIFA.

“The problem of the overloaded calendar is not caused by league competitions, but by FIFA, with its new format and duration of the tournaments, and by UEFA with the Nations League and the new UEFA club competitions with the increased number of dates and games,” Serie A chief executive Luigi De Siervo said.

“But the difference is that UEFA had a strong consultation with all the stakeholders — leagues included — and decided on a reform in the format of club competitions after a long discussion.

“FIFA imposed their new format and competitions without any discussion, consultation and without accepting to have any form of relationship with the other competitions organisers.”

Despite only naming FIFA, a source told ESPN that there is still some frustration among some player unions over UEFA’s level of consultation, which mostly amounts to committee hearings rather than the need for union approvals. Nevertheless, UEFA’s consultation has been deemed satisfactory enough to avoid being listed in Monday’s complaint.

Does this mean players won’t strike?

It is evident from hearing players speaking out that the level of frustration is high inside clubs regarding their schedules. A FIFPro source argued those conversations and frustrations are happening in locker rooms at different clubs, in different countries and in different languages, with the overarching issue always the same.

Rodri’s comments over the likelihood of a player strike were backed up by a number of top players in the weeks following, and the antitrust complaint on Monday could do little to stop that from becoming a reality.

A source told ESPN that FIFPro and the European Leagues are not using strike action as a threat, although it considers that possibility as an undercurrent of which all sides remain keenly aware.

The news conference ended on Monday the same way it began: Through a series of player interviews shown on a projector, with a cast of the world’s best players demanding a change to the schedule.

A clip of Lionel Scaloni, Argentina‘s 2022 World Cup-winning manager, played first. “The reality is that it is unthinkable that this can improve, because the players all play in Europe and the number of matches isn’t going to change,” he said.

Then it cut to a clip of Thierry Henry and Jamie Carragher criticising the schedule, before some choice words from Bayern Munich boss Vincent Kompany. “It’s an opinion I have shared for four or five years now, he said, adding: “Maybe it’s possible, maybe it’s not.”

That answer will not come soon, with football’s longest-ever season rolling on and lawyers preparing to argue over who gets to decide on the solution.