GOAL US writers discuss the impact of the Canada star's injury and whether international soccer calendar should be changed
The Canadian men's national team was in the headlines for the wrong reasons earlier this week when it was revealed that Alphonso Davies tore his ACL during international duty. When the injury occurred in the 12th minute of Canada's CONCACAF Nations League third-place match against the USMNT last week, there was no sense that the left back had done anything serious.
So much for that. He will now face six months sidelined. Let the finger-pointing begin.
Davies' agent suggested that Canada coach Jesse Marsch "pressured" an un-fit Davies into playing against the U.S. Bayern Munich, his club team, are furious. They have threatened to sue Canada, saying "sending a clearly injured player with a damaged knee on a 12-hour intercontinental flight without a thorough medical assessment is, in our view, grossly negligent."
In turn, responded, claiming "medical documentation confirms that proper care protocols were followed." A serious knee injury to a really good footballer has turned into performative mud-slinging in the media.
But it does help raise interesting questions about international football. Club managers have long complained about the impact of international breaks, with Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp and Carlo Ancelotti among those railing against a packed schedule over the years. Players themselves have suggested that the calendar is so full that it might be time to take collective action.
But can anything really be changed here? Should soccer consider a format such as the NBA, with international competitions held in the summer, outside of the regular season? Or are the opportunities for footballers to represent their countries just injuries waiting to happen? And given all of that, can – and should – FIFA hold teams accountable to field their best lineups in tournaments such as the Club World Cup?
A disappointing injury for star player has brought all of those questions – and more – to the fore of the footballing consciousness. GOAL US writers try to answer some of them in the latest edition of… The Rondo.
Getty Images SportIs Canada to blame for Davies' ACL injury?
Tom Hindle: No. Alphonso Davies wanted to play a football match. A highly qualified medical team determined that he could. He got hurt. It's a series of unfortunate events, and we don't have to assign blame to someone for everything.
Jacob Schneider: Based on the information available, Canada's medical team certainly needs to be accountable. According to his agent, Davies felt a tweak in his knee after the semifinal match, and was originally not supposed to play against the U.S. However, he was cleared for the match against the USMNT and played, only to tear his ACL 12 minutes in. For Canada to then send him to Germany, not knowing his ACL was torn was, as best, irresponsible. That simply cannot happen.
Ryan Tolmich: They're not to blame for his injury, but did they handle it correctly? Injuries happen in soccer but, when they do happen, they must be treated in the right way. There's no problem with Davies playing in the third-place game if he was deemed healthy enough to play, even if Bayern, quite wrongly, insist that that game didn't have real significance. Sticking him on a plane with that injury not fully diagnosed, if that is actually what happened, is wrong. All in all, this is an unfortunate situation, one in which all sides are understandably frustrated, leading to some rash and incorrect decisions.
Alex Labidou: Without knowledge of Canada's internal discussions, it's tricky to determine who's to blame. One thing to note, though, is these decisions aren't made in a vacuum. Davies is Canada's biggest star by a mile, this isn't some random prospect or up-and-comer with a point to prove. He has the clout to say no if he feels he wasn't ready or fully fit to participate. So from that lens, this is all unfortunate, but it's simplistic to say Canada is solely at fault here.
AdvertisementAre there changes FIFA or clubs can make to minimize injury concerns?
TH: Well, the number of games won't decrease. It's hard to imagine any sort of sweeping change that come from a players union. And that's possible. Rodri and Dani Carvajal both speculated that players themselves could even go on strike if needs be. But getting a whole load of footballers who don't really have a strong worldwide union to agree on one thing would take a miracle. The harsh truth is that managers and clubs always act in their self interest. Loopholes exist, and they will always be exploited. Player mobilization or nothing.
JS: A really interesting thought could be minute restrictions at the club level. For example, the EPL plays a 38-match regular season – if players were only allowed to play in 30 matches per season – it would force rotation, and really test the level of managers across the entire league to get the most out of their teams. It would lead to less congestion for players, and perhaps spark an opportunity for those on the fringe of the XI. Regardless, there is too much soccer at the moment, and players are going to get hurt.
RT: It's pretty simple: fewer games. The schedule continues to get more and more bloated, which is what is generally leading to so many of these injuries. Do teams in Spain and Italy really need to fly to Saudi Arabia for Supercups? Does the preseason really need to be globetrotting money grabs with games all over the world? Does every match for European teams need to be a Nations League game that "means something" and discourages rotation? Of course, more games equal more money, but it's all coming at the expense of player safety, which is something those that manage players – such as Pep Guardiola – have said time and time again. Maybe we should listen to them.
AL: FIFA largely controls the international space so it isn't going to scale back on a revenue driver. From the club's POV, it might behoove them to consider scaling back cup competitions. For example, the France FA did away with the Coupe de la Ligue in 2020 with the aim to avoid fixture congestion. MLS has created a bunch of rules to help in this area too. Perhaps this needs to happen in England for example, where there are two major cup tournaments – the FA Cup and whatever the Carling Cup is nowadays. Clubs should push the CC to be either a U23 competition or exclude teams who are participating in European competition. Not only would it provide mid- and lower-table teams something to cheer for, but it would help in keeping the top stars in the league fresh.
Getty Images SportShould club managers be allowed to refuse international call ups?
TH: Nah. I think we forget as fans that most footballers are fulfilling a childhood dream by putting on their national team's shirt. Dan Burn, 32, cut by his boyhood club, just made his England debut. That's what it's all about! There should, in an ideal world, be an agreement between club and national team coaches to ensure that guys are rested enough. But that varies from country to country, and club to club.
JS: A player should never be denied a chance to represent at the country level if they choose. Period. However – and this is the theme here – there needs to be some sort of policy implemented to account for player well being. Representatives of national teams and regulars at the club level are playing too much – it is not healthy.
RT: Absolutely not. That's too slippery of a slope. What's preventing a club from putting clauses in contracts that pay players not to play for their national teams? What's preventing clubs from – as Bayern just did – deeming that national team games outside of their country or region don't matter? How in the world would it help to give clubs more power? Playing for your national team is both a right and a privilege, and taking that out of their hands would be a disaster.
AL: No, but they should be allowed to place in minutes restrictions for games outside of tournaments. It wouldn't affect the stars much, because if a club manager denies a guy a chance to play a full 90 and he's Harry Kane, odds are that player will likely leave. If it is driven by match fatigue or injury, clubs – which see these players the majority of the year – should have the right to scale back when needed.
Getty ImagesShould soccer consider the NBA's approach?
TH: In abstract, this isn't a bad idea. It wouldn't break up the already-packed club schedule, and can free individual teams of any responsibility. Piece it together correctly, and there might actually be more time to breathe in domestic soccer. But there are a couple of issues here. The first is that there are far too many international games for this to be remotely possible. On average, teams play 10-12 per year in seasons major tournaments. Managers aren't just going to let those go. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it would remove whatever summer break players have. In effect, such a decision would only make the calendar busier. Perhaps not the right move, but these kinds of changes really should be considered.
JS: It would be interesting, but then there is no summer break for players. There needs to be an implemented strategy across all leagues to figure out a proper solution. Maybe it’s the entire month of November every year in which qualifiers and Nations League is played, and then two international breaks – one in the fall and one in the spring, along with summer tournaments such as the World Cup and Euros. Something has to change.
RT: Absolutely not. For many fans, and for players themselves, international games are the highlights of the year. Moving those to the summer would have several negative knock-on effects, with the worst being the overworking of players. It would remove the few weeks that players do get off, particularly in non-tournament years, and would also kneecap the international game even more by giving coaches fewer chances to work with their squad. Fewer interruptions in the club season would be nice, sure, but the negatives here far outweigh the positives.
AL: Yes. Imagine if you're a club that is paying 90 percent of a player's wages and, no fault of your own, you lose a world-class player during a crucial stretch of the season. The current club and international setup is antiquated and needs to be re-evaluated. Switching international to the offseason would have massive benefits. One, you can evaluate players on the totality of their seasons as opposed to just short segments of their club campaigns.
If you look at the U.S. basketball team, for example, there is rarely any controversy on squad selection. But typically, there's alignment because the national team can assess the totality of a player's recent season and career. There are some many examples of one-cap flashes in the pan that are just included due to a stretch of hot form. Secondly, when it's in the offseason, there's a heightened sense of accountability from all involved. Players are voluntarily accepting an invite and if an injury happens, they have the rest of the offseason to get right.
