Image Source: Fiji Football Association / Facebook
As the dust settles on the newly combined September/October international window (which we dubbed “Septober”) and the upcoming November window pulls into view, there’s a lot to sort through. In fact, 340 matches of pure bliss.
While we won’t necessarily get into the weeds too much here (we have a podcast for that), it is worth pausing momentarily to reflect on whether or not this new mega-window was a success. The answer isn’t so straightforward. Instead, it varies by confederation and federation.
By combining two international windows into one, FIFA has—intentionally or unintentionally—served both the club and national team spaces.
For clubs, the calendar now becomes a bit less cluttered and fragmented. For as long as we can remember, complaints from some confederations (ahem, UEFA), clubs, and their fans about three international breaks throughout the fall have been routine, especially with the September break coming shortly after the start of most club seasons.
Now, clubs can establish a better rhythm to start their seasons before being interrupted by more important matters.
This benefits national teams, too, allowing players more time to settle into their club seasons. Additionally, we saw that for quite a few countries outside Europe and North/Central America/Caribbean, players actually had fewer matches to play than they might have had with their clubs, perhaps easing the demands on their bodies.
This wasn’t always the case, but examples include Australia and much of Africa, where national teams did not take full advantage of the extended window to hold four matches. This could mean that those players had more time to recover from club duties, travel, and whatever matches they did play with their national teams.
On the flip side, it was intriguing to see how many players were recalled by their clubs (or, rather, had some sort of agreement in place).
In CONCACAF specifically, there were quite a few players who played two matches (of a four-match window) and then returned to their clubs. Bermuda’s Nahki Wells (Luton Town/ENG) is an example of this, as is Donavan Phillip (Colorado Rapids/USA), who came in for Saint Lucia’s final two matches of the window.
There are other examples, and we won’t list them all here, but it is something to keep an eye on during next year’s window.
For national teams, the extended window served a few purposes. First, and perhaps most importantly, it provided a longer opportunity for coaching staffs and their teams to work together.
Often, international breaks are pretty rushed, with only 10 days to hold multiple training sessions and usually two matches. The Septober window offered 16 days together (if maximized) and up to four matches, giving coaches and players additional time to develop an understanding of tactics, game plans, teamwork, and player movement.
The additional time together surely had its benefits, which were more visible with some countries than others.
Martinique is a prime example of this. Given that they are not FIFA members and do not participate in every international window, combined with the four new faces in the squad, the added time proved to be immensely valuable.
Despite starting slowly out of the gate with a disastrous loss to El Salvador, you could see the team’s progression on the field as the window went on. Even though they ended up getting relegated from League A in the Nations League, by the fourth and final match (a rematch with El Salvador following a win against Honduras), they looked much, much more cohesive and probably should have come away with a win (the match ended 1-1).
Another wonderful thing that came out of this new combined window was the ability for a confederation—or even FIFA—to host a tournament within it. Nowhere was this more important than in Asia and Oceania.
The Gulf Cup and the new FIFA ASEAN Cup both took place in Asia during this window, giving teams an opportunity to call in their best available squads.
Similarly, the MSG Prime Minister’s Cup provided a golden opportunity for the Melanesian nations within Oceania (Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and New Caledonia) to enjoy an extended period of competitive football together—something not very common in Oceania as a whole.
Both Indonesia and Hong Kong would earn their first-ever trophies at the ASEAN Cup, while Saudi Arabia and Fiji each won on home soil.
It seems possible that, going forward, these tournaments could become a growing trend during years when Nations League or qualifying competitions aren’t taking place—especially among confederations like South America, Oceania, and Asia, perhaps with some of the bigger countries in North America included.
The one continent that seemingly missed out on an opportunity was Africa.
The vast majority of its national teams only played two 2027 AFCON qualifiers, with a sprinkling of friendlies among a few countries afterward. We assume the reason for this was largely financial, but it meant that, for most, the window was wrapped up by the second Tuesday (of three).
How much of a missed opportunity was it for countries like Somalia, Lesotho, Eritrea, Malawi, Congo Republic, and others not to benefit from the additional time together?
In truth, we really don’t know, but it feels like one.
Eritrea just returned to international competition for the first time since 2020, while Congo and the others rarely schedule friendlies. Opportunities to spend extended time together and bond are rare, especially for smaller nations.
Essentially, these African nations missed out on two matches together—matches that, in prior years, might have taken place during the separate September and October windows.
It will be up to the federations to figure out how to make the most of the extended window going forward, but only if the confederations continue to leave open gaps for friendlies.
Then you have strange call-up anomalies, like Niger, who actually did take advantage of the extended window with a friendly against Algeria.
In doing so, they brought in Konan N’Dri (Lecce/ITA) just for this friendly… and then only played him for the first 45 minutes, during which he opened the scoring.
A very strange decision, to be sure… bringing in a high-level player not for two crucial qualifiers, but for a friendly, and then only playing him for the first half. Very strange…
Our final observation of the Septober window has to do with squad depth.
There seemed to be some consternation on both ends. Nations with deeper player pools had to utilize that depth due to more injuries than might occur during a normal, two-week window.
At the same time, nations with shallower player pools found it just as tough to navigate injuries or the loss of players to club duties. Some felt this gave them a competitive disadvantage against opponents with deeper pools.
Ultimately, the Septober window appears to be a step in the right direction for international football. But as we’ve seen, simply providing more time doesn’t guarantee that every national team will benefit equally. The real test going forward will be whether federations, particularly those with fewer resources, can find ways to maximize the opportunities this new calendar provides.