CLUB football returns this weekend in the shadow of one of the most controversial international breaks of recent times.

A number of issues were raised, from coronavirus-related logistical complications to the restructuring of the international game as a whole.

The combination of a packed football calendar and travel restrictions around Covid-19 have created new problems that almost certainly won’t see common-sense solutions.

Meanwhile, Fifa is trying to solve problems that don’t exist by making the World Cup biennial, and elsewhere there are calls to scrap meetings between teams as far apart in the rankings as England and Andorra.

South American player bans

The most immediate issue following this international break has been the five-day bans for players who were forced to refuse an international call-up to their respective American nations due to Covid-19 travel restrictions.

South American countries plus Mexico have remained on Britain’s coronavirus red list (despite data showing daily new confirmed Covid-19 cases per million people are much lower in these countries than in the UK).

This has made travel impossible for the many Britain-based players who would represent these countries, and for whom representing their nation is the pinnacle of sporting achievement.

World Cup qualifying is a big deal, especially considering the compact nature of the South American section.

The 10 teams play each other home and away, meaning these qualifiers are effectively a league competition with the prize being a place in the World Cup.

In many ways, and considering South America’s geographical variation, it can be more of a test and more intriguing than the Copa America or even the World Cup itself.

This is why players not being permitted to play for their countries has been such a big issue.

As a result of players not travelling despite being called up, Brazil, Paraguay and Chile, plus Mexico, have decided to exercise a Fifa regulation that bans these players for five days — meaning they would miss upcoming games for their respective clubs.

These include Fabinho and Alisson of Liverpool, Raphinha of Leeds, Wolves forward Raul Jiminez, Newcastle’s Miguel Almiron, and Ederson and Gabriel Jesus of Manchester City.

The ban has not been enforced on Everton’s Richarlison due to the club’s good relationship with the Brazilian FA after they allowed the forward to join up with Brazil’s Olympic squad this summer.

This issue is a complicated mix of global politics — ie, why some countries are on the red list when others aren’t — and the difficult issue of considering elite sportspeople exempt from certain Covid-related rules.

Attitude towards internationals

It has also highlighted the attitudes towards the international game from the often blinkered club football perspective, which comes down to money.

The regular arguments seem to be that the clubs pay the wages and that the Premier League and lucrative Champions League are more important than international games, which are less about money and more about pure sporting achievement.

There is an arrogance around the top end of club football which isn’t too far removed from the idea that a Super League of super clubs should be the pinnacle of the game.

This attitude is also evident when suggestions are made that a high-ranked team like England shouldn’t be playing low-ranked teams such as Andorra in World Cup qualifying. But why shouldn’t they meet?

Not every game exists to entertain a TV audience and not every England game is about the development of the England national team — they are also about opportunities for the opposition.

To his credit, Gareth Southgate does manage to use these games in a positive way to try out new systems and players, so the argument they are useless for England falls down there, too.

There is a strange obsession with seeking parity in football — one which looks to create an artificial version of the game where all teams playing against each other are of equal quality and status.

The way some clubs go about developing and asserting their strength needs to be looked at and is a separate issue, but forcing parity would only lead to a less organic version of the game.

At international level, the amount of money invested by each national association can vary, but international football is an interesting sporting exercise with various cultures represented on the world stage.

The limited player pools based on political boundaries mean star players have to be developed and coached rather than bought.

There can be disagreements around the nature of those boundaries and what goes on within them (which can, in turn, affect football in those countries) but in a sporting and even geographical sense, it makes for an interesting challenge.

And after all, the Nations League now exists, allowing similarly ranked teams to play each other. It gives the competition a different dynamic and allows so-called minnows to meet, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get the chance to face the likes of England or France (whose U21 side recently drew with the Faroe Islands) in other tournaments.

Fifa

While the nations league has been an interesting addition to the international calendar, Fifa’s plan to stage a World Cup every two rather than four years could make football’s biggest tournament less interesting and less special.

Led by the ideas of Arsene Wenger, Fifa wants to reshape the international calendar.

There’s no doubt the part of Wenger’s plan looking to change the scheduling has merit and is obviously something that needs addressing.

With Covid-19 likely to remain an issue, having international breaks in longer blocks with more rest time for players afterwards makes sense.

But creating more World Cups seems to go against that, and comes across as a cynical attempt by Fifa to make more money.

Instead, the answer may lie in investing in international football at confederation level — improving its scheduling and ensuring a positive impact on community-led sport in the respective regions.

The Africa Cup of Nations, for example, has struggled in recent years to not only put on tournaments due to political unrest in planned host countries, but also to find its place in the football calendar.

If space in the calendar and investment in football is to be made, it should be in areas such as this.

It’s difficult to make a case for international football when travel is still so troublesome and potentially unwise due to the ongoing threat of Covid-19, but in the increasingly money-driven world of top-level club football, international football can be a breath of fresh air.

Organisations need to work towards making sure it remains so, and not see it go down the same path as the club game.