Zhu Yi: A Split-Year League Calendar Does Not Fit China's Conditions, Would Weaken League Value and Fail to Achieve International Alignment

On September 4, after media reports emerged that the Chinese Football Association was studying a split-year Chinese Super League season, Transfermarkt administrator Zhu Yi shared his views.

Zhu Yi wrote:

As you know, I have always opposed whether Chinese leagues should switch to a split-year format. I should clarify that I am not opposed to the split-year format itself, but I oppose forcing its implementation when current conditions are not yet mature. The reasons are as follows:

1. A split-year format does not fit China's current conditions. There is no need to ask experts about this issue. Simply invite representatives of clubs and fans from Northeast China and Xinjiang and ask them one question: Can you accept having no home matches for several consecutive months in the middle of a season, or playing and watching football in temperatures of zero degrees Celsius or below? The answer is obvious. China is promoting coordinated regional development and emphasizing regional fairness and balanced growth. Northeast China and Xinjiang are important parts of China's football landscape. Why should they sacrifice their own development conditions to accommodate the whole country? For a split-year system to work in these regions, the prerequisite is coordinating every city to build climate-controlled, enclosed, geothermal stadiums that meet the requirements. How much would that cost, and how many years would it take? Why should local governments suddenly cooperate and spend that money? Without solving these issues, discussing a split-year system is just building castles in the air.

2. A split-year format should not be studied or decided solely by the Chinese Football Association. It is a systematic project that requires nationwide coordination. Only by adjusting all national competitions simultaneously can the various levels of youth competition systems be effectively connected. However, the Chinese Football Association currently only oversees men's and women's professional leagues and U-series club competitions under the China Youth Football Championship, and it has neither the authority nor the ability to coordinate the entire national competition structure. The federation sets the calendar, and studying a split-year format requires joint promotion by the Chinese Football Association and the professional league body, because professional leagues are only one part of the national competition system. A split-year professional league in isolation has no meaning. If even the decision-making body is unclear, how can reform begin?

3. A split-year format is not a mandatory option required by the country. So far, research into a split-year system lacks higher-level policy support and clear requirements. In essence, it is an attempt to seek a shortcut for better AFC Champions League results or player transfers abroad. Making such a large-scale adjustment to the national competition system for the single championship goals of three or four teams puts the cart before the horse. Think back: haven't we seen plenty of cases where there was 'a huge amount of action, but the final result was a 0-5 defeat'? Chinese football has many truly urgent issues to solve: management systems, ownership reforms of professional clubs, youth development systems, talent cultivation, protection of players' interests, market activation, governance of industry practices, competition discipline, development of coaches and referees, building a stronger national team, the media environment and cultural development. Which one is not more urgent and fundamental than a split-year format? Replacing a vase on an already fragile foundation cannot change a broken destiny, no matter how beautiful the vase is.

4. A split-year format weakens the league's commercial value. Everything must be calculated financially first. A split-year system would affect not only the home-match revenue of northern clubs, but also the broadcasting and sponsorship value of the entire league, with the cost ultimately shared by all clubs. First is the seasonal mismatch of media resources. The current CSL schedule (March-November) coincides with the traditional sports off-season, when the NBA and Europe's top five leagues are also in their breaks. The CSL is rare premium sports content for platforms. Changing to a split-year format (August-May of the following year) would put it directly into competition with the top five European leagues, the NBA, the CBA and other high-quality competitions for broadcasting and news resources. Why would platforms give prime resources to the CSL? Once the summer time slot is given up, it will be difficult to regain. Second is the mismatch with corporate budget cycles. Chinese companies generally prepare financial budgets by calendar year, and approvals for sports marketing expenses and club transfer investments follow the same rhythm. If the league changes to a split-year format, the season will span two calendar years. Summer recruitment would coincide with the point when companies have already allocated annual budgets, meaning funds may have been spent while new budgets have not yet been approved, forcing recruitment plans to be put on hold. Sponsors would face the same awkward situation. Marketing budgets approved at the beginning of the year would largely have been used by the middle of the season during the split-year transition, so how would the league fulfill exposure commitments in the second half? This is not simply about extending negotiation cycles; it directly disrupts clubs' funding rhythm for recruitment and commercial development. Third is the decline in league brand recognition. The CSL's brand awareness over decades among both fans and sponsors has been built on the full-year format. A rushed switch to a split-year system would mean rebuilding viewing habits and persuading the market to accept a new exposure cycle. At a time when Chinese football's brand value is already at a low point, this gamble carries a high cost. After the J League adopted a split-year format, uncertainty has emerged in sponsorship renewals and broadcast negotiations, while Chinese football's commercial credibility and appeal are far behind the J League. What do we have to bear this risk?

5. A split-year format cannot solve the problems that need to be solved now. Supporters of the change often list three major reasons, but each one fails under scrutiny. AFC Champions League competitiveness? The gap lies in individual player ability and clubs' attitudes toward participation, not the calendar. Without improving ability and attitude, whether the season is full-year or split-year, there will be no progress. Summer heat? Summer is hot, but is winter not cold? The lessons from Japan's split-year reform clearly show that the problem of hot summer matches was not fundamentally solved; one type of discomfort was simply replaced by another. Players moving abroad? They cannot go because we have not developed the talents needed by the European market, because clubs have not yet benefited from youth systems, and because our transfer system has not integrated into the international cycle. None of these problems can be solved simply by adjusting the season schedule.

6. A split-year format is blind imitation detached from reality. After Japan's J League switched to a split-year format, many controversies emerged: special subsidies for stadium hardware upgrades were distributed slowly, attendance during snow seasons would face a significant decline, fans faced safety concerns when attending matches, and public dissatisfaction grew. This has already shown through facts that reforms detached from national conditions and public foundations are bound to carry costs. As for the AFC, it is even less worthy of blind imitation. The AFC Champions League moved from a split-year format in the 1990s to a full-year format in 2004 to suit strong East Asian teams from China, Japan and South Korea, and later returned to a split-year format after West Asian countries pushed for it with financial power, while even foreign player limits were removed. The history of AFC rule changes is essentially a game of pursuing money and influence. Today you follow the split-year trend, tomorrow someone removes foreign player restrictions, and the day after tomorrow the format changes again. Following every change ultimately means using your own rhythm to accommodate someone else's game.

Ultimately, the split-year format is only an insignificant piece in the larger chessboard of Chinese football reform and is far from the key move that determines success or failure. What we truly lack has never been a calendar synchronized with Europe, but solid foundations for youth development, healthy club governance, a fair and transparent competition environment, and generations of players capable of standing on European pitches. Every one of these fundamental projects is more urgent, more difficult and more worthy of investment than simply changing the season schedule.

Chinese players going abroad and improved AFC Champions League results have never come from simply matching foreign calendars as a shortcut; they are the natural outcomes of building a solid foundation. Without a strong foundation, even a more synchronized calendar only means going around in circles. Rather than repeatedly spending resources on aligning with the split-year format, it would be better to concentrate limited resources, energy and reform determination on the fundamental issues that truly determine the future of Chinese football. What we lack is not a timetable identical to Europe's, but a group of people who can establish themselves within that European timetable.