FIFPro, the global union of soccer players, made this Friday (25) harsh criticism of FIFA (International Football Federation) for the way the entity has administered the sport in recent years.
The union cited the holding of the Club World Cup in the United States to express “its growing concern about how FIFA is currently managing global football.”
FIFA responded back with criticism of FIFPRO’s leadership, asking for more dialogue between the parties in search of solutions.
In a statement published after a meeting in Amsterdam on Friday – which was attended by 58 players unions around the world – FIFPro said players have been harmed by trade policies imposed by the “autocratic governance system” of the entity that governs football worldwide.
The union pointed out that “the calendar of overloaded games, the lack of adequate periods of physical and mental recovery, extreme game conditions, the absence of significant dialogue and the continuous disrespect for players’ social rights unfortunately have become pillars of FIFA’s business model.”
According to the union, “this is a model that endangers the health of players and marginalizes those who are the heart of the game.”
According to FIFPro, the Club World Cup was held “under extreme and inadequate conditions for any human being, demonstrating a worrying insensitivity to human rights, even when it comes to elite athletes.”
The competition was marked by matches held in heavy heat, with measures such as the pause for cooling in the middle of the players moisturizing games.
FIFPro President Sergio Marchi had recently fired a series of criticism of FIFA because of the club cup for exposing European club players to an overload of matches at a time when they would be on vacation.
“What was presented as a global football festival was just a fiction staged by FIFA, driven by its president, without dialogue, without sensitivity and without respect for those who support the game with their daily effort. A grandiloquent staging that inevitably resembles Nero’s ‘bread and circus’,” Marchi said.
“We will continue to denounce abuse and demand fair, decent and sustainable conditions for all players. Football needs responsible leadership, not emperors. It needs fewer autocratic monologues and more genuine, inclusive and transparent dialogue,” said the union.
FIFA, in turn, also by note, said it was “extremely disappointed by the increasingly divisive and contradictory tone adopted by FIFPro’s leadership.”
According to the entity, the approach shows that “instead of engaging in a constructive dialogue, FIFPRO has chosen to follow a path of public confrontation driven by artificial public relations battles.”
According to the organization, it is an option that does not seek to protect the well-being of professional players, “but aim to preserve their own positions and personal interests” of union leaders.
FIFA also said it met last July 12 with players’ unions in New York to discuss improvements to athletes, but that FIFPRO refused to attend the meeting.
Among the points discussed, were cited by the mandatory minimum rest of 72 hours between matches; Compulsory vacation period of at least 21 days at the end of each season; and provisions for future discussions about the international calendar, players’ travel and weather conditions under which matches are played are considered in defining policies.
According to FIFA, FIFPro responded to the meeting with “a series of personal and disrespectful attacks.”
The entity stated that the union’s demonstration “suggests that its leadership does not really care about the players, but with internal political struggles and their image.”
