Could there be a player strike looming in European soccer?

Soccer fans rarely go without games to watch at any point during the calendar year, but for some high-profile players, that's the problem.

Manchester City star, and Belgian international, Kevin De Bruyne pointedly made clear his thoughts on the soccer calendar earlier this month, telling Reuters "It seems that money speaks louder than the players' voices."

It's well known that organizations like FIFA, UEFA and domestic leagues make billions when the game's biggest stars frequently step onto the pitch. Players make their fair share too — De Bruyne alone signed a 20.8 million pound extension with Manchester City in 2021.

But with top clubs playing roughly 80 matches in a season, that's also a lot of opportunities to get hurt.

Reuters cited a report released by FIFPRO, the players union, released Sept. 5 that concluded players only get 12 percent of the calendar year to rest. The remainder of the year they spend training or playing matches.

"Maybe this year things will be okay, but next year could be problematic," De Bruyne told Reuters. "We know there will be only three weeks between the Club World Cup final and the first Premier League match. So, we have three weeks to rest and prepare for another 80 matches."

When will players finally put their boots down?

Unlike U.S. sports, there is no collective bargaining agreement in European soccer between players and leagues (which is a separate dilemma entirely). Causing a work stoppage isn't as simple as organizing a player strike.

Most clubs also roster a variety of star senior players, who see significant playing time throughout the year, and reserves who occasionally get their number called. The latter would be the most likely to oppose a strike.

Senior players receive large paychecks, even big clubs like Manchester City and Arsenal pay big money to players who sit on the bench most of the year or substitute in for 10 minutes at a time.

Reserve players see considerably fewer zeroes in their salaries and rely on substitute appearances and lower-quality matches to impress managers and advance their careers.

A strike might get star players' point across of "give us a break," but reserves could go broke if such a stoppage was drawn out over a considerable amount of time.

So, what solution is possible, if any?

ESPN's Gabriele Marcotti suggested Wednesday that a "less play, less pay" system could potentially ease tensions between players and the systems that generate revenue from congested schedules.

In essence, players' salaries would be contingent on the amount of games they play (in American terms, throw out any conception of guaranteed money). That may seem outrageous but this may be the rare case it works.

Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti suggested Sept. 20 that players might be open to the idea.

"The aim is for players to play less games," he said in a news conference. "I don't think the players will have any problem to lower their wages if they play less."

The concept appears like players conceding a portion of their careers to appease the powers that profit from them, but when player health is a high priority and an oversaturated player pool exists, it might be the best for both parties.

Star players get more rest in exchange for lower wages. Reserves get more opportunities to play and potentially the ability to negotiate higher wages. Organizations still get to profit and fans don't lose an astronomical inventory of games to watch.