Opinion: The Outrage Over Arsenal’s Withdrawn Players Misses the Point

Ten Arsenal players withdrawing from international duty in one break looks extreme, because, frankly, it is. Current reports put Arsenal at 10 withdrawals during this March 2026 window, a concentration that feels bigger than the usual round of late pull-outs and managed absences that follow every international camp. That is why the reaction has been so loud with the withdrawals looking coordinated, even if nobody can prove it is.

Arsenal’s list of withdrawals stretches right across the squad: Leandro Trossard for Belgium, William Saliba for France, Gabriel for Brazil, Jurrien Timber for the Netherlands, Eberechi Eze, Declan Rice, Bukayo Saka and Noni Madueke for England, Piero Hincapie for Ecuador and Martin Zubimendi for Spain. Whilst Martin Odegaard was also not selected by 

Set out like that, it is easy to see why the reaction has been so strong. This is not one or two late pull-outs. It is a cluster involving senior players from across Arsenal’s spine and from several of Europe’s biggest national teams.

But that is also where the outrage starts to outrun the evidence. Most of Arsenal’s withdrawals have been presented as injuries, knocks or cases requiring assessment or recovery. Spain said Martín Zubimendi left camp because of discomfort in his right knee. At the same time, England sent Declan Rice and Bukayo Saka back for medical assessment and released Noni Madueke after his knock against Uruguay. That does not prove there has been no club influence. It does suggest the federations themselves are signing off on these decisions rather than being dragged into them in any form. Just as importantly, there has been no obvious public frustration from the national teams involved, no pointed criticism and no sense yet of federations briefing against Arsenal in response. If there were genuine anger behind the scenes, you would usually expect some sign of it by now.

And before a World Cup, that matters even more. Do we firmly believe that players are going to casually jeopardise their place in a World Cup squad a few months before the finals by pulling out? If they have withdrawn, it's with support of their national team.

National teams are not going to take unnecessary risks with players they may need on the biggest stage. If these players are leaving camp, the likelier explanation is that club and country have reached the same conclusion: this is not the week to gamble. That is especially true when some Arsenal players are still involved in meaningful fixtures. Viktor Gyokeres scored a hat-trick for Sweden in a World Cup play-off, Christian Norgaard scored for Denmark, and Riccardo Calafiori helped Italy through another high-pressure tie. In other words, this is not a blanket refusal from Arsenal to engage with international football. It looks more selective than that. The players considered fit enough and important enough for decisive matches are still playing. The ones carrying issues are being protected, which is exactly what you would expect in a World Cup year.

If Arteta has had a hand in pushing back, he would hardly be the first elite manager to do it. The clearest comparison is still Sir Alex Ferguson. Nicky Butt said Ferguson would sometimes withdraw Manchester United players from England friendlies when the club had large numbers involved, recalling: “You’ve got an England friendly coming up and you’re not going.” Butt added: “At one stage, there were nine of us and he would pull one or two of us out and let the other six go.” That does not make Arsenal’s current situation identical, but it does place that this isn't out of the norm, should Arteta have had involvement.

Arsène Wenger made similar noises, calling for international friendlies to be scrapped in 2005 and trying to persuade Theo Walcott to stand down from England Under-21 duty in 2009. José Mourinho said in 2017 that mid-season friendlies “don’t make sense” after Phil Jones and Chris Smalling were injured on England duty.

That does not make Arsenal automatically right. International football cannot function if clubs simply decide which fixtures matter and which do not. Harry Kane’s complaint during England’s November 2024 camp, when nine players withdrew, was understandable: “country must always come before club football.” He was speaking to a real tension in the modern game.

But Arsenal’s case still feels more complicated than a simple club-versus-country stitch-up. The better reading is that this is what happens when a leading club reaches the decisive part of the season with a large international contingent, a World Cup on the horizon and national associations with little appetite for taking avoidable risks. Ferguson, Wenger and Mourinho all lived in that world. If at the helm of the decisions, Arteta would only be following a long tradition. What makes this break unusual is not the instinct; it is the scale.