MUCH has been made over the past few weeks about teams fielding alleged “weakened teams” during competitive matches and whether it ruins the “spirit of the game.”

It isn’t a new phenomenon, teams have been doing it for years across the various league and cup competitions, usually to silence from the media, fans and those in charge of the game.

But every once in a while, a mountain is made out of a molehill and complaints are made about managers who rest players in one game in order to be at their peak in another.

On Monday, the Football Association decided, rightly in my opinion, not to charge Championship club Huddersfield for making 10 changes for their game against Birmingham on April 29, a game they lost 2-0.

Manager David Wagner and his side had secured a place in the playoff and didn’t want to risk injuries to key players, with important games coming up.

The Terriers boss can name whatever team he likes, it is his job as manager to select the squad and I always find it bizarre when people outside a club complain.

Birmingham may have been in a relegation battle and the teams fighting for survival would have been annoyed and frustrated that the Blues weren’t playing a full-strength Huddersfield side.

But they will admit that their season didn’t hinge on that one result, it came down to how they played throughout the course of the season and that it would be irresponsible to rely on favours from other teams.

The Football League have said that considering all matters “there is no doubt in the board’s mind that Huddersfield Town could have fielded a ‘stronger’ team, but in the absence of a full and detailed definition of what constitutes ‘full strength,’ there was sufficient scope for the club to make a significant number of changes to its starting line-up,” but changing the rules is hardly going to help.

How do you define a full strength team in 2017? Tactics and player roles vary from game to game and a manager can field two completely different teams in back-to-back games and make a valid point that both are full strength.

How you prepare for one game is totally different to how you prepare for another and the players you pick will back that up.

If a manager believes that dropping a star player in one game is beneficial for the team, can the league really punish that team?

If Jose Mourinho wanted to drop Zlatan Ibrahimovic to play a younger, quicker striker to get in behind a slow defence, should Premier League punish the club?

Or if Antonio Conte wanted to leave out John Terry, Chelsea captain, to play a faster defender does that mean he is handing the opponent an advantage?

Because Terry has barely played this season because the Blues boss feels the team is stronger with him on the bench.

Most people would agree that the captain should be one of the first names on the team-sheet so every time Terry was left out, would that not mean Chelsea were not at their best?

Terry may not be the best example given his age and form over the past few years but some would argue that he was still the best defender at the club, especially when David Luiz was starting ahead of him, but it proves the point that a manager ultimately knows best when it comes to picking the matchday squad and that nine times out of 10, a manager will field a team which they believe can get the job done, even if it does look significantly weaker on paper.

To be honest, for the past month Mourinho has openly said he didn’t care about the league and rested players in games that they have gone on to lose. Yet there was no sound from the FA.

It’s not like they don’t have precedents for punishing teams for losing a game when they have felt a second-string XI started.

In 2010, then Wolves manager Mick McCarthy made 10 changes when facing Man United. Wolves lost 3-0 and the club were fined £25,000.

“I’m surprised anything has come of it, to be honest,” striker Kevin Doyle said at the time.

“They [the Premier League] are going to have to end up fining a lot of teams over the next few years, I think, if they are going to go about it that way.

“Are they going to start fining clubs for changing teams in the FA Cup, the League Cup, when they go from Champions League to the league?

“Bigger teams change their sides massively every week, so why is that any different for us?”

Doyle’s point rings true today. How many times do clubs make three-four changes per game and no-one bats an eyelid?

Their integrity is never called into question because everyone understands that is how the game is played today.

It is a squad game, managers use their squad as they deem fit. If the League don’t want to see “weakened” teams, perhaps don’t pile up fixtures and give teams more rest in between games.

The Christmas and New Year period is the worst, as teams play three games in the space of a week.

You are always going to see teams utilise their squad during fixture congestion and if at the start of the season clubs name their squad of 25, surely they can be used any way they want?

When the Premier League fined Blackpool £25,000 in 2011, Alex Ferguson stuck up for the Tangerines saying: “You are allowed to have 25 players. They ask you to name them.

“They don’t ask you to name your 11 and 14 substitutes. The rules are there.”

Blackpool chair Karl Oyston, before he ruined the club, echoed Ferguson.

“The Premier League set their criteria that you have to name a 25-man squad ahead of the season and effectively they then come back in a scarily big brother-type way and tell you those players aren’t good enough or the manager hasn’t got the right to name the team that he wants to name.”

So unless the new rule will force teams to name their strongest starting 11, teams will continue to do what they want and rightly so.

Imagine if Louis van Gaal was punished for starting Marcus Rashford in the Premier League last season against Arsenal.

A then unknown player despite his heroics days earlier in the Europa League, it would have deterred United from playing him again and who knows where he would be now.

The Premier League aren’t worried about the integrity or spirit of the game being ruined.

What concerns them are overseas viewers switching on and not seeing the so-called “stars” of the “best league in the world,” which would then affect their ability to sell the television rights for billions of pounds.