How would playing games for less than 90 minutes be fair?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but PFA chief Gordan Taylor’s idea that halves could last less than 45 minutes just seems like a change for the sake of it. Taylor will claim he’s simply looking after the players which is his job, yet sometimes you feel those off the pitch feel the need to change the rules just to justify their high salaries.

The Premier League seem willing to cut whatever corners to get the season started by the beginning of June, and then want to get it done as soon as possible.

With the majority of clubs having 9 League fixtures left the plan is that everyone plays every 3 days, meaning the domestic campaign (not including the FA Cup) completed in 27 days.

So, like the proposal for allowing more subs, this is a way to protect players from the fatigue of a hectic schedule (that’s the same players who have now been resting since the weekend of March 7th).

If you’re in Europe, you are used to playing either Tuesday/ Wednesday – Saturday – Tuesday/ Wednesday or Sunday – Thursday – Sunday, so you should be used to a packed calendar anyway.

We are in an era where a Klopp will disrespect the FA Cup even when Liverpool have a 20-point lead at the top just so his men can have a rest.

Of course, no one cares about fitness and stamina when it comes to travelling around the world to go on tour?

I still await any evidence where playing less times give you an advantage? If that were the case no one would ever win Doubles or Trebles.

Ronaldo has won 5 Champion Leagues, Messi 4. They didn’t do that by having weekends off.

A new generation should be taught the best momentum comes from the more you win, not people making excuses for you and wrapping you up in a comfort blanket.

Remember this would only be for a month, and I will never accept that an athlete couldn’t handle this having just had a rest.

Yet again though it’s greed by the clubs.

Owners wanting everything but not being willing to compromise. They want football to resume purely based on television contracts worth millions. Then though, it’s them who demand it get finished by July to meet UEFA deadlines and appease sponsors. Oh, and maybe they can squeeze in a quick tour to sell a few shirts? Why do we never care about fitness then?

So, when everyone does everything to be flexible there is concerns over avoiding injuries. To translate; that means they don’t want assets worth millions hurting their transfer value.
If you then said ‘okay let’s play once a week’ that wouldn’t be good enough either. They want everything on their terms without having to bend.

I defend the proposal of zero fans at empty stadiums. That’s something you have to tolerate if you want the sport to resume, that doesn’t quantify giving anyone an unfair advantage.

Making games less than 90 minutes would jeopardise the ‘integrity’ of the competition (that buzz word). How can it be fair for example that a Brighton beat an Arsenal over 90 minutes, yet a Norwich get the advantage of only having to face us for an hour?

Of course, we are more likely to get a result against Man City the less time you have to play them? Yet is that fair on those who had to play 90 minutes against them? And why? What’s the reason? So, players can get a rest?

We are willing to ignore hundreds of people dying a day so clubs get their millions, yet players playing every three days is barbaric? Just think about that.

Unlike Belgium, France and Holland we can’t simply accept that mass gatherings are dangerous. Yet players playing every three days, that’s the issue that’s unacceptable?

The game has got to be careful what message it is sending out?

We are only now trying to finish this season for them, not the fans, not the players, but for their bank balance. The least they can do is grin and bear it for a month?

Dan Smith

4 Comments

  1. jon fox says:

    Questions Dan! You stop short of saying what your own opinions are on the – to me ludicrous and impossible plan- to complete the season. Do you think it WILL HAPPEN and DO YOUY THINK IT EVEN SHOULD? You make many fine points but do not explicitly say what YOU think should happen and I woild like to know whether or not I can consider you a moral man or not.

    1. Andrew Elder says:

      Jon, if you have noticed my few posts on this subject you will know that I am 100% behind your comments. Money is the motivator and nothing else and sums up the greed now prevalent in football.

      The EPL discussions on how to finish the current season fly in the face of existing Covid – 19 rules of travel and is a slap in the face for those bereaved by this awful virus. It is a huge risk to be playing a further 92 matches even behind closed doors. The emphasis should be on how to safely start next season which is only 3 months away.

    2. Dan says:

      I will be honest Jon
      Originally I’m one of these who don’t like to pretend to know everything
      For example , will Sky agree to more games next season instead of wanting money back?
      Is there a scheme where FIFA or the government help ?

      It’s been the last couple of weeks though where I really noticed a greed about the clubs
      They don’t want to return for us the fans but for money .
      My first choice is zero football till this virus is under control and I now have zero sympathy for clubs who complain about things being unfair
      They want this to continue no matter what so don’t then complain
      I’m disgusted that at a time where so many show strength football shows weakness
      I truly feel some clubs are trying not just to save money but get an advantage out of this
      Brighton for example won’t be happy till season is void , relegation is cancelled on and you keep your TV money

  2. SueP says:

    An interesting article
    It all points to greed but the games not being finished will lead to all sorts of problems. I have just read that Angela Merkel has given the go ahead for football to resume in Germany. Will that be a green light for the PL to be given permission?

Comments are closed