The Dilemma Of Player's Injury With National Teams; Who bears The Cost? Club Or Country?

Image source

Sometimes I wonder why it's often the responsibility of football clubs to bear the consequences of a player who gets injured during international duty, of course when you look at the scepticism that comes with it you will see that most players embrace playing for National team's out of respect and out of honour. But apart from bonus and match day fee, does the national team continue the rehabilitation process of a player who goes out for a long time let's say carrying a ligament, muscle or knee injury? In my opinion this isn't seldom the case, former Gunners Manager Arsene Wenger reiterated this during the 2014 EPL campaign especially when most of Arsenal's players were out with injury during a particular international break and had to come back to the club in order to get state-of-the-art treatment facilities of which their countries couldn't offer them. From a subjective point of view I'll like to state some factor .

First I think it's a country that should be deserved of a player's willingness to play and not the other way around and the reason why this is so is because I think football clubs are the reason why national teams get to know these players in the first place, take for example, Cesar Azpilicueta was never invited to the Spanish team because he wasn't deemed good enough but after consistently performing well for two Seasons at Stamford Bridge that was when he got an invite, now how does it sound if he now gets injured playing with the national Spanish team and yet came back to Chelsea Football Club in order to treat the injury? Who pays the cost? Does Match bonus cover it? Is there a grant to injured players on national duty? Absolutely not. It definitely sounds proposterous yeah? That's definitely the issue going on currently. The condition is worsened in African countries and I can vividly tell you that's why African countries might never contest at the biggest stage in world football. So who owns a player? The football club or the national team?

There's vividly no competition and I guess I need to restructure the question who is capable for the players welfare when they are injured playing for them? when you take a look at the national team of some countries you will find an unequal percentage of people who basically joined national teams a result of citizenship by registration and not because they were born there that he is having stayed for more than 15 years or more becomes eligible to play for a national team without a doubt this has been the reason why many players hardly change nationalities but at the end of the day the question still remains as to whether the country they've pledged their allegiance to has plans to keep them or dump them immediately they're down with injuries for a long time.

This has been the plight of players who's been injured on national duties, the football club is always having to be at the receiving end of a player's commitment to national duty because the criteria of considering players who are injured, unfit or inconsistent is below one and the clubs are the one that puts up with the excesses of these players while the countries gets to enjoy the hard labour of these players. It's basically unfair to me. Recently Ngolo Kante was sent home by the French national team for being unfit. I know many will will argue that the national team games aren't really extended like Club football but I'll have to say nationalities dump and use players and are hardly ever committed to them during their inconsistent period or when they're unfit. So the only way to solve this should be through player's grant these grant should cover for cost in case of injuries so that players can get state of the art treatment when injured on national duty, it might definitely not be enough but I guess more will be implemented with time.