Jon Howe: Now for something completely different

Jon Howe: Now for something completely different

Weekly column.

In his latest column for leedsunited.com, lifelong supporter Jon Howe looks at the potential restructure of the international calendar, after Raphinha missed last weekend's defeat at Southampton.

Howe is the author of two books on the club, ‘The Only Place For Us: An A-Z History of Elland Road’ - which has been updated as a new version for 2021 - and ‘All White: Leeds United’s 100 Greatest Players’ in 2012.


Jon Howe


As the dust settled on the mad dash from Manaus, in the end there were no winners, except perhaps Southampton, and all the other Premier League teams with much bigger and stronger squads than Leeds United’s, and who were able to rest key players with little consequence. Raphinha didn’t play. And if Leeds fans aimed their angst at a below-par performance on the South Coast, they could also reserve some wrath for whoever devised an international calendar which seemingly benefits nobody with the game truly at their heart.

Raphinha was in fine company at 1.30am on Friday morning, rubbing shoulders with global football elite and proving that he deserved to. He was still in fine company at 3pm the following day, because along with himself, Ederson, Gabriel Jesus, Thiago Silva, Allison and Fabinho were all absent from their respective team’s matchday squads, but they all won. How sorely Fred was missed in Manchester United’s 4-2 defeat at Leicester I’m sure was debated by their fans long into the night. Even Emerson Royal was absent from Tottenham’s squad the following day, and only Aston Villa’s Douglas Luiz was made available, presumably because he only came on as a 71st-minute substitute in the Raphinha-inspired rout of Uruguay.

It always felt like a tall order to cargo Raphinha’s weary body halfway across the world with a 36-hour turnaround, and expect him to turn it on like a performing circus animal, and we can take some solace from the fact that the Premier League’s top clubs did the same. But it still rankles that Leeds were presented with this situation in the first place, and adds considerable weight to discussions taking place this week between FIFA and national team managers surrounding reform to the international calendar.

The headline element of this is Arsene Wenger’s proposal to play the World Cup every two years instead of every four. This has been condemned, ridiculed and unanimously opposed by leagues, associations, clubs, managers, players and fans the world over. But in truth, away from the frenzy of noise Wenger’s front-page proposition triggered, there is profound restructuring being discussed which could actually bring tangible and positive change.  

I have a lot of respect for Arsene Wenger. Not only did he bring science, humanity and grace to our national game in 22 years at the helm at Arsenal, he did it while getting under Alex Ferguson’s skin like a burrowing tick, and upsetting the natural order of Manchester United’s stroll to uninterrupted dominance. As a master of philosophy and reflection we should perhaps offer him some credit, and an ear, in listening to his masterplan for restructuring the international game. He is actually acting on a mandate given to him by 166 of the 211 national associations, who voted for reform and tasked Wenger – as FIFA’s head of global football development – to find a solution. This isn’t change for change’s sake, and to justify an expensive job.

In defending his two-year World Cup proposal, Wenger suggests that “players want to play big games, they don’t want to play small games”. Which is true, except that – on an international stage - “big” games are only big because they don’t happen very often. A big thing becomes smaller when it is not perceived as having the same prestige, sense of theatre and singularity.

Wenger proposes playing a World Cup on even years and the Euros/Copa America etc on odd years. And while I’m sure Kalvin Phillips would still remember this summer’s Euros as “big games” in his career, whether he did the same every summer or not, Wenger’s argument of more regular tournaments earning more money to be invested in youth development programmes in the 133 nations who have never qualified for a major tournament, looks a little contradictory if you are therefore suggesting the major tournaments should be opened up to more minor nations. You can ask how that maintains big games as “big games” if you are also proposing reform to rid the calendar of “small games”.

Perhaps the crux of the argument, and where Wenger’s case has considerable merit, is his suggestion that modern generations want instant satisfaction and to be entertained quicker. In essence, we shouldn’t dismiss something that is unusual, simply because it is different to our conventions and history. The World Cup has been played every four years for nearly a century, so arguably change is overdue and inevitable, and deriding an idea because it is wildly conflicting with “what we have always done”.

Pep Guardiola and Gareth Southgate have both been quoted as having an open mind towards Wenger’s proposal, and they are coming from polar opposite positions. Ultimately, preventing player fatigue comes a close second to presenting the best product for global television audiences as the fundamental goal, and while it is hard to imagine any player benefitting physically from major tournaments every single summer – and inevitably clubs would be unable to use their international players for the first few weeks of every season – it does sound like there may be room for compromise.

Personally I don’t like the idea of a biennial World Cup - because it dilutes the cachet rather than any overly-romantic notions about tradition - and maybe even holding it every three years and having a year off after the Euros would be a suitable solution for all? But Wenger seems hell-bent on a tournament of the “biggest quality” every summer, and if that isn’t a World Cup, a major tournament of some description. How that differs from the muddled fusion that is the Nations League or a global equivalent I’m not sure, but when it all comes out in the wash, I can’t see how you can guarantee players a post-tournament rest period without robbing clubs of the services they pay lots of money for.

Where Wenger’s proposals perhaps had the most heads nodding in agreement, was suggesting two mid-season, month-long international windows for all qualifying games. This would prevent the stop-start nature to the domestic season, and prevent us having to go to B&Q one Saturday in every month rather than Elland Road. Would it also prevent Leeds having to play without a player of Raphinha’s undoubted quality in the first game back? I would hope so.

As I stared out of the window at six hours of darkened motorways on the drive back from Southampton last Saturday I wanted to meet the anonymous suited administrator who had deemed it necessary for Brazil to play three games over the international break, but not only that, for there to be a three-day break between the first two fixtures, but a five-day break between the second two. Just 24 hours more rest could have made all the difference in Raphinha having an influence at St Mary’s.

In a global restructuring of the game I don’t expect Leeds United’s squad size and strength to appear on the radar of discussion, and Marcelo Bielsa wouldn’t want it to be. In terms of being open to change however, while some of Wenger’s proposals might be a step too far, there’s much more underneath, and something that is different, isn’t necessarily something that is wrong.       As the dust settled on the mad dash from Manaus, in the end there were no winners, except perhaps Southampton, and all the other Premier League teams with much bigger and stronger squads than Leeds United’s, and who were able to rest key players with little consequence. Raphinha didn’t play. And if Leeds fans aimed their angst at a below-par performance on the South Coast, they could also reserve some wrath for whoever devised an international calendar which seemingly benefits nobody with the game truly at their heart.

Raphinha was in fine company at 1.30am on Friday morning, rubbing shoulders with global football elite and proving that he deserved to. He was still in fine company at 3pm the following day, because along with himself, Ederson, Gabriel Jesus, Thiago Silva, Allison and Fabinho were all absent from their respective team’s matchday squads, but they all won. How sorely Fred was missed in Manchester United’s 4-2 defeat at Leicester I’m sure was debated by their fans long into the night. Even Emerson Royal was absent from Tottenham’s squad the following day, and only Aston Villa’s Douglas Luiz was made available, presumably because he only came on as a 71st-minute substitute in the Raphinha-inspired rout of Uruguay.

It always felt like a tall order to cargo Raphinha’s weary body halfway across the world with a 36-hour turnaround, and expect him to turn it on like a performing circus animal, and we can take some solace from the fact that the Premier League’s top clubs did the same. But it still rankles that Leeds were presented with this situation in the first place, and adds considerable weight to discussions taking place this week between FIFA and national team managers surrounding reform to the international calendar.

The headline element of this is Arsene Wenger’s proposal to play the World Cup every two years instead of every four. This has been condemned, ridiculed and unanimously opposed by leagues, associations, clubs, managers, players and fans the world over. But in truth, away from the frenzy of noise Wenger’s front-page proposition triggered, there is profound restructuring being discussed which could actually bring tangible and positive change.  

I have a lot of respect for Arsene Wenger. Not only did he bring science, humanity and grace to our national game in 22 years at the helm at Arsenal, he did it while getting under Alex Ferguson’s skin like a burrowing tick, and upsetting the natural order of Manchester United’s stroll to uninterrupted dominance. As a master of philosophy and reflection we should perhaps offer him some credit, and an ear, in listening to his masterplan for restructuring the international game. He is actually acting on a mandate given to him by 166 of the 211 national associations, who voted for reform and tasked Wenger – as FIFA’s head of global football development – to find a solution. This isn’t change for change’s sake, and to justify an expensive job.

In defending his two-year World Cup proposal, Wenger suggests that “players want to play big games, they don’t want to play small games”. Which is true, except that – on an international stage - “big” games are only big because they don’t happen very often. A big thing becomes smaller when it is not perceived as having the same prestige, sense of theatre and singularity.

Wenger proposes playing a World Cup on even years and the Euros/Copa America etc on odd years. And while I’m sure Kalvin Phillips would still remember this summer’s Euros as “big games” in his career, whether he did the same every summer or not, Wenger’s argument of more regular tournaments earning more money to be invested in youth development programmes in the 133 nations who have never qualified for a major tournament, looks a little contradictory if you are therefore suggesting the major tournaments should be opened up to more minor nations. You can ask how that maintains big games as “big games” if you are also proposing reform to rid the calendar of “small games”.

Perhaps the crux of the argument, and where Wenger’s case has considerable merit, is his suggestion that modern generations want instant satisfaction and to be entertained quicker. In essence, we shouldn’t dismiss something that is unusual, simply because it is different to our conventions and history. The World Cup has been played every four years for nearly a century, so arguably change is overdue and inevitable, and deriding an idea because it is wildly conflicting with “what we have always done”.

Pep Guardiola and Gareth Southgate have both been quoted as having an open mind towards Wenger’s proposal, and they are coming from polar opposite positions. Ultimately, preventing player fatigue comes a close second to presenting the best product for global television audiences as the fundamental goal, and while it is hard to imagine any player benefitting physically from major tournaments every single summer – and inevitably clubs would be unable to use their international players for the first few weeks of every season – it does sound like there may be room for compromise.

Personally I don’t like the idea of a biennial World Cup - because it dilutes the cachet rather than any overly-romantic notions about tradition - and maybe even holding it every three years and having a year off after the Euros would be a suitable solution for all? But Wenger seems hell-bent on a tournament of the “biggest quality” every summer, and if that isn’t a World Cup, a major tournament of some description. How that differs from the muddled fusion that is the Nations League or a global equivalent I’m not sure, but when it all comes out in the wash, I can’t see how you can guarantee players a post-tournament rest period without robbing clubs of the services they pay lots of money for.

Where Wenger’s proposals perhaps had the most heads nodding in agreement, was suggesting two mid-season, month-long international windows for all qualifying games. This would prevent the stop-start nature to the domestic season, and prevent us having to go to B&Q one Saturday in every month rather than Elland Road. Would it also prevent Leeds having to play without a player of Raphinha’s undoubted quality in the first game back? I would hope so.

As I stared out of the window at six hours of darkened motorways on the drive back from Southampton last Saturday I wanted to meet the anonymous suited administrator who had deemed it necessary for Brazil to play three games over the international break, but not only that, for there to be a three-day break between the first two fixtures, but a five-day break between the second two. Just 24 hours more rest could have made all the difference in Raphinha having an influence at St Mary’s.

In a global restructuring of the game I don’t expect Leeds United’s squad size and strength to appear on the radar of discussion, and Marcelo Bielsa wouldn’t want it to be. In terms of being open to change however, while some of Wenger’s proposals might be a step too far, there’s much more underneath, and something that is different, isn’t necessarily something that is wrong.       

X