By Kamila Muraharisetti | October 30, 2026
Club vs. Country: Who Controls the Player?
Growing up, the debate over club versus country never felt entirely distant to me. Federico Valverde, the Real Madrid and Uruguay midfielder, is my cousin, so I have always paid particular attention when he switches between Real Madrid’s white jersey and Uruguay’s blue.
For a long time, that switch seemed simple. Playing for one of the biggest clubs in the world while also representing your country sounded like the best of both worlds. However, the two responsibilities can clash. Real Madrid depends on Valverde throughout a long season, while Uruguay relies on him during major international matches. No matter which jersey he wears, he is still the one putting his body on the line.
So when a club wants to protect its investment but a player wants to represent his country, who should decide?
Why Clubs Want Control
Clubs have legitimate reasons to worry about international duty. They pay players’ salaries, spend millions on transfer fees, and provide training, medical care, and rehabilitation.
International breaks add risks clubs cannot control. A player can travel thousands of miles, play several matches, and return exhausted or injured. If Valverde were hurt while playing for Uruguay just before an important Champions League match, Real Madrid would suffer the consequences.
This has happened to other major clubs. In November 2023, Barcelona midfielder Gavi tore his ACL while playing for Spain against Georgia. He missed the rest of Barcelona’s season and did not return until October 2024. Similarly, Neymar suffered a serious knee injury while representing Brazil in October 2023, leaving his club, Al-Hilal, without him for more than a year. These examples show how international injuries can affect an entire club season.
Why Clubs Cannot Simply Say No
FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players generally require clubs to release eligible players during designated international periods.
Without that rule, wealthy clubs could decide that protecting their own seasons mattered more than international competition. Countries might arrive at the World Cup without some of their best players simply because their clubs refused to release them.
However, FIFA's rules also generally require players to respond to national team call-ups. This creates another problem because the player does not always have the freedom to decide whether competing is in his best interest.
The Risk Still Matters
FIFA has created programs to address the financial risks clubs face. Its Club Protection Programme can compensate clubs when players suffer qualifying injuries on international duty. Specifically, the program covers a portion of a player's fixed salary when an injury suffered during national team duty prevents him from playing club football for more than 28 consecutive days. Under the 2023–2026 program, compensation was capped at €7.5 million per player per accident, with payments available for up to 365 days after the initial 28-day period.
Unlike the injury protection program, this fund rewards clubs for releasing players to international competitions. FIFA allocated $100 million to clubs whose players participated in World Cup qualifiers, $250 million for participation in the final tournament, and another $5 million in reserve. Clubs receive payments based on their players' participation, meaning they can benefit even when no injuries occur.
Still, compensation has limits. If Valverde were injured for Uruguay, a payment would not put him back on the field for Real Madrid. Even if FIFA covers part of his salary, it cannot replace his contributions during important matches or erase the physical consequences of his injury.
That is why clubs deserve protection, but not complete control.
What the Player Wants
The biggest problem with the club-versus-country debate is that the player can disappear from it.
Valverde has spoken about how much Uruguay means to him and how much representing his country matters. In a 2022 interview with DirecTV Sports, Valverde described representing Uruguay as a dream and said that playing for his country was incomparable to anything else in his career. That makes it difficult to believe that a club should make the choice for him.
As his cousin, I naturally pay closer attention to his career. That connection has made me think about what exists beyond the trophies and jerseys. Players also have their own goals, loyalties, and ambitions.
The Player Should Have the Final Say
I believe the player should have the strongest voice.
Some might argue that because Real Madrid pays Valverde's wages, the club should decide when he plays. This argument makes sense from a financial perspective, since the club invests in his career and depends on his performance. However, paying a player's salary does not mean that every decision about his body and career should belong to the club. His contract creates professional responsibilities, but it should not eliminate his ability to make personal choices about representing his country.
One protection I would advocate for is a change to FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players that gives players greater control over international call-ups. Under this proposal, players would have the right to accept or decline a call-up without facing punishment for their decision. Clubs would still be required to release players who choose to represent their countries, but neither clubs nor national teams could force players to compete against their wishes.
The policy should also require an independent medical assessment when club and national team doctors disagree about a player's fitness. This would prevent either side from making medical decisions solely based on its own competitive interests. If a player is medically cleared, he should be able to decide whether to participate. If an independent doctor identifies a serious health risk, protecting the player's health should take priority.
Conclusion
Following Valverde has made me realize that changing jerseys is more complicated than it looks. Real Madrid needs him healthy, while Uruguay wants one of its best players available.
When club and country pull in different directions, both should be heard. However, ultimately, the player is the one who has to step onto the field, so he should have the final say.
