With the expanded Champions League and the planned Club World Cup next year causing a big fixture pile-up, how likely is it we will see players take action over the number of games they are being forced to play? – Oliver

It’s definitely an issue, and given how many players have talked about workload in public, you can be sure it’s something they’re discussing privately. The problem really is how action could be organised. It’s only elite players who are playing too many games; those lower down the pyramid probably wouldn’t mind a few more games for extra cash. Similarly while a lot of fans are concerned about the proliferation of games that seem to mean very little, they’d still be furious if a game for which they’ve bought a ticket and paid travel costs was called off because of an industrial dispute by players who earn hundreds of thousands of pounds a week. That’s one of the reasons football has taken the disappointing path it has; organised opposition is very difficult – the protest against the super league was one of the very few occasions on which enough of football’s different stakeholders were sufficiently in alignment to kick back.

That said, the Club World Cup would seem a decent target. The shambolic organisation means few fans are likely to have bought tickets yet and, unlike the Champions League or a World Cup, it’s not a competition players dream of playing in. In terms of the PR war, it would be very easy, at least for players at European clubs, to portray it as a needless addition imposed on the calendar with no consultation – because that’s true. I don’t expect it, but if there were to be serious action, it would make sense for players to target it at the Club World Cup.

Do you think there’s anything particularly special about Mauricio Pochettino that makes him a good fit as an international coach? – Ray

The truth is we just don’t know. International management is very different to club management and there are countless examples of great club coaches who have found it difficult to adjust to the more limited involvement with the players that the international game entails. Equally, several highly successful national managers – Aimé Jacquet, Lionel Scaloni, Joachim Löw, Luis de la Fuente, Gareth Southgate – have done little at club level but worked well within the framework of a federation.

The press that lies at the heart of Pochettino’s philosophy takes time to impose but part of that at club level has been getting his players up to the required fitness. With the USMNT that may not be such an issue; certainly by stereotype, US players are extremely fit, their shortcomings tactical and technical. And Pochettino is charismatic; there should be no issue with getting buy-in. Pre-World Cup performances for a host can always be a little uneven. It’s very difficult with friendlies to know exactly what sides are trying to do, but I’d be surprised if the US don’t make an impression at the Gold Cup in 2025.

When did football clubs become privately owned “companies”, as such? They all started out as some sort of community organisation or similar. So how did they come to pass into the ownership of businessmen? – Darragh

They always have been in England, at least since the league began in 1888. Even when they were set up by churches or teachers associations or as works teams of railway companies. From as early as the 1870s, owners of local industries, especially textile mills in the north-west, were luring players down from Scotland, ostensibly in the guise of giving them jobs. After 1885, when professionalism was legalised, there was no need to keep up the pretence. Sunderland’s three league titles in the 1890s, for instance, were based on investment from the shipbuilder Robert Thompson and the mine-owner Samuel Tyzack, both of whom were directors. The only difference from a “normal” company was that, until 1981, directors could not draw a profit and dividends were limited to 7.5%. The first European club to float on the stock exchange was Tottenham in 1983.

Premier League teams have super talented players that either sit or play part of the time. I understand they have European games to also worry about but essentially stashing talented players is not something that can happen in North American leagues, and it seems like an unhealthy formula. Thoughts? – David

Premier League clubs are limited to squads of 25, of whom at least eight must be “homegrown” – that is players who have spent at least three years affiliated to an FA-registered club before the end of the season in which they turn 21. Under-21 players, which for this season means players born after 1 January 2003, do not count towards that total. I actually think that’s about right – two players per position with three extras, plus young players – and the vast majority of players are quick enough to agitate for a move if they feel they’re not getting enough game-time, but given matchday squads now comprise 20 players, most are involved often enough.

That said, I’m not sure the situation at Chelsea is particularly healthy – they have six players over the age of 21 plus the youngsters Carney Chukwuemeka and Deivid Washington who are fit and haven’t started a league game this season, plus eight players who made 10 or more league appearances last season who have been loaned out. That’s a rare case, but other clubs stockpile young talent, and it definitely has been true in the past that there has been a blockage in development, of talented young players struggling to get pitch time, although that seems to have eased, partly because players are more willing to move abroad now, and partly because clubs are aware of the value of loaning players out to gain experience.

On this day

Floodlit football now feels the best form of the game, the surrounds faded into darkness as the pitch glows at the centre of attention, but for only about half of the sport’s history have games under lights been sanctioned. The first attempt at floodlit football came on 14 October 1878 at Bramall Lane, where two Sheffield representative sides played a game under four 8,000-candlepower lamps suspended from 30ft poles. The darkness, though, caused an obvious problem: around 6,000 of the remarkable 20,000 crowd were able to sneak in without paying.

Although there were further experiments with floodlights, when the Football League began in 1888, it was stipulated that games had to be played in daylight. More than 12,000 turned out at Deepdale, Preston, in 1920 to watch a match between the Dick, Kerr Ladies and the Rest of England, illuminated by two anti-aircraft searchlights. After the Arsenal manager Herbert Chapman saw a floodlight game in Belgium a decade later, he had lights installed at Highbury, but it wasn’t until 1951 that the first sanctioned game under lights in England was played, Arsenal beating Hapoel Tel Aviv 6-1. After a series of hugely popular friendlies between English sides and top European opposition, the first league match under lights, between Portsmouth and Newcastle, was played in 1956 – although only after being delayed for several minutes because of technical issues.

• This is an extract from Soccer with Jonathan Wilson, a weekly look from the Guardian US at the game in Europe and beyond. Subscribe for free here. Have a question for Jonathan? Email soccerwithjw@theguardian.com, and he’ll answer the best in a future edition