Premier League says six-week summer break needs calendar and regulatory changes

The Premier League has said changes to football's calendar and regulations are needed before players can receive a six-week summer window for rest and preparation. BBC Sport reported that the league's chief football officer, Rebecca Caplehorn, supported the principle of the proposal but said the existing schedule made it impossible to deliver.

Watch the highlights:

The response came as Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Maheta Molango called for a compulsory three-week summer holiday followed by three weeks of retraining. Speaking at the Fifpro performance summit in London, he argued that the demands placed on players were damaging their availability. The PFA and international players' union Fifpro have repeatedly raised concerns about the effects of fixture congestion on welfare, according to the BBC.

Molango pointed to five withdrawals from England's squad for the latest international window: Cole Palmer, Marcus Rashford, Declan Rice, Kobbie Mainoo and Tino Livramento. He singled out Palmer's absence as an example of the pressure created by the calendar. Molango said the Chelsea forward would have faced a fourth successive summer of football had he gone to the World Cup.

Palmer withdrew for load management, the BBC reported. England manager Thomas Tuchel subsequently criticised the number of opportunities the forward was missing. Molango challenged that response, arguing that players remained eager to represent their countries but could not ignore their physical limits. His comments attributed the problem to scheduling; they did not establish a medical explanation for each of the five England withdrawals.

The union chief also cited recent withdrawals involving Germany's Kai Havertz, Netherlands striker Brian Brobbey and France captain Kylian Mbappe. He presented those examples as evidence that the issue extended beyond England and questioned a system in which leading players could be unavailable to perform. Those concerns formed part of his wider appeal for protected recovery time.

Caplehorn's response left a clear distinction between support for the proposed break and the ability to implement it. She said the current calendar contained obstacles to creating the full six-week gap, and that regulatory and scheduling changes would be necessary. Her remarks did not amount to a commitment to introduce the arrangement under the existing timetable.