Potential break away European super football league

jellyroll

Legacy fans, always moanin'.......

   

DefaultM

As a non football watcher I've always found it odd that the big teams are made up of mostly foreign players.

Looking at the squad lists from October last year it seems like you can have a 25 person squad and 17 of them don't have to be homegrown.
The smaller teams have a lot more homegrown members, like Burnley who have 18; whereas the big teams are mainly in the single figures. Chelsea have only got 4.
So what makes that team Chelsea, if the owner is Russian-Israeli, the manager is German, and 17 of the 21 players aren't even from England?

If I was going to actively watch football I think I would prefer to go for a smaller club. Sometimes I play on Fifa, and I'll put it on hard and try to win the FA Cup with someone like Burnley. Thats a lot more exciting, because if you do win a game 5-0 you know it's not just because you've got all the best players in the world. 

icu81b4

EricTheWeary said:

No one in a sports bar in LA is watching Fulham vs Burnley.

Just FYI, NBC Gold show every game Burnley play, they are owned by Americans. 

EricTheWeary

icu81b4 said:

EricTheWeary said:

No one in a sports bar in LA is watching Fulham vs Burnley.

Just FYI, NBC Gold show every game Burnley play, they are owned by Americans. 

I probably should have known that. Although based on online conversations with Americans they only have interest in a handful of premiership clubs and no time for plucky underdogs. So, I still suspect I'm not far off the mark. 

Philly_Q

EricTheWeary said:

icu81b4 said:

EricTheWeary said:

No one in a sports bar in LA is watching Fulham vs Burnley.

Just FYI, NBC Gold show every game Burnley play, they are owned by Americans. 

I probably should have known that. Although based on online conversations with Americans they only have interest in a handful of premiership clubs and no time for plucky underdogs. So, I still suspect I'm not far off the mark. 

I think it's quite a recent acquisition, Burnley fan Tony Livesey was talking to the new chairman on 5 Live yesterday.

TeleMaster

Freebird said:

TeleMaster said:

It's also a real time example of what happens when you let venture capitalists who have little to no regard of our communities into institutions that are engrained in them. They give no shits and will do whatever they can to maximise their profits at the expense of everyone else. 

Goldman Sachs is the name you are looking for, and they have a long history of putting profit before people.

Isn't it Morgan Stanley who was behind all of this?

TeleMaster

LooseMoose said:

TeleMaster said:

Because football affects a lot of people and it's an integral part of their community, their lives. It would have completely changed the game and the competitions that all clubs are involved in. That has an impact into millions of people who give those clubs their money every year. 

It's also a real time example of what happens when you let venture capitalists who have little to no regard of our communities into institutions that are engrained in them. They give no shits and will do whatever they can to maximise their profits at the expense of everyone else. 

But why?  I'm honestly asking and not being anti football or anything - in fact, I quite enjoy it...I just know nothing of all the politics involved!

The change in the game will be leaving a league system with relegation and promotions, with romance and jeopardy to one that guarantees profits for every club involved regardless of performance. It will change every aspect of the game that we all love. 

There's also the fact that it might completely change the game for the worse. Clubs may leave. It will leave the league worse off. They'll take all the best players, have the most money, everyone will suffer and they'll just get more and more distant. 

They'll have all their away games in different countries, and people will find it difficult to go. And the clubs would prefer it if they didn't. Some different random family spending £200 in the club shop every week is preferential to having the same supporter every week who bought one shirt and a season ticket and that's it. 

There's also reports that clubs were happy that players were being threatened with being banned from international selection because it allows them to play for their club more often. 

The whole thing was poisonous. 

Hopefully we get fans on the board now properly. 

Legionreturns

EricTheWeary said:

I've skipped 200 posts as it's now clear it's not going to happen, hard to believe they didn't scope it out a bit more before having a public conversation.

Proposals to reduce the Premier League down to 18 teams have floated around for a while so maybe they will resurface now. For the top clubs reducing the number of domestic games when they have European matches and players called for internationals would work in their favour and there are clubs in the Premiership that  won't have enough cache for an international TV/ betting audience. No one in a sports bar in LA is watching Fulham vs Burnley.

17th and 18th get relegated each season, 16th joins the play offs so have one last go at staying up ( a must watch do or die match every year).  

Bobs yer uncle.  

The big clubs already benefit from their financial position. Why should everyone else have their games, and therefore, gate revenue, reduced so the teams with 40 highly paid internationals can get a longer rest before their multi million pound champions league games? 

PolarityMan

TeleMaster said:

Because football affects a lot of people and it's an integral part of their community, their lives. It would have completely changed the game and the competitions that all clubs are involved in. That has an impact into millions of people who give those clubs their money every year. 

It's also a real time example of what happens when you let venture capitalists who have little to no regard of our communities into institutions that are engrained in them. They give no shits and will do whatever they can to maximise their profits at the expense of everyone else. 

It would have completely changed the game? Le are they allowed to use hands now? Stocks? Is the ball super bouncy? Can they surf on giant drones?

Or would it be the game is exactly the same but fans would be to rinsed out of another 20 quid a month to watch the extra games?

The outcry is all about protection of investment from the fans.

Hattigol

PolarityMan said:

TeleMaster said:

Because football affects a lot of people and it's an integral part of their community, their lives. It would have completely changed the game and the competitions that all clubs are involved in. That has an impact into millions of people who give those clubs their money every year. 

It's also a real time example of what happens when you let venture capitalists who have little to no regard of our communities into institutions that are engrained in them. They give no shits and will do whatever they can to maximise their profits at the expense of everyone else. 

It would have completely changed the game? Le are they allowed to use hands now? Stocks? Is the ball super bouncy? Can they surf on giant drones?

Or would it be the game is exactly the same but fans would be to rinsed out of another 20 quid a month to watch the extra games?

The outcry is all about protection of investment from the fans.

No, the outcry was about corporate greed overriding 130 odd years of heritage and culture and the selfishness of the few potentially wrecking the very fabric of the game.

But the surfing on giant drones could have been what Perez was referring to when he mentioned making it more attractive to the younger generation. 

EricTheWeary

Legionreturns said:

EricTheWeary said:

I've skipped 200 posts as it's now clear it's not going to happen, hard to believe they didn't scope it out a bit more before having a public conversation.

Proposals to reduce the Premier League down to 18 teams have floated around for a while so maybe they will resurface now. For the top clubs reducing the number of domestic games when they have European matches and players called for internationals would work in their favour and there are clubs in the Premiership that  won't have enough cache for an international TV/ betting audience. No one in a sports bar in LA is watching Fulham vs Burnley.

17th and 18th get relegated each season, 16th joins the play offs so have one last go at staying up ( a must watch do or die match every year).  

Bobs yer uncle.  

The big clubs already benefit from their financial position. Why should everyone else have their games, and therefore, gate revenue, reduced so the teams with 40 highly paid internationals can get a longer rest before their multi million pound champions league games? 

As it’s clubs like Liverpool who have proposed this you’d need to ask them for a more detailed answer but I think the basic concept is the financial backers only want them playing big matches all the time. A circuit of Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea, Man City, etc, and not the matches that attract less interest and no midweek dead rubbers that tire out the star players. 

Anyone looking at the Premiership could say okay these are the clubs with the largest appeal, when they play against each other that generates the most TV interest. On that basis the Premier league would be a lot smaller. 

Teetonetal

EricTheWeary said:

Legionreturns said:

EricTheWeary said:

I've skipped 200 posts as it's now clear it's not going to happen, hard to believe they didn't scope it out a bit more before having a public conversation.

Proposals to reduce the Premier League down to 18 teams have floated around for a while so maybe they will resurface now. For the top clubs reducing the number of domestic games when they have European matches and players called for internationals would work in their favour and there are clubs in the Premiership that  won't have enough cache for an international TV/ betting audience. No one in a sports bar in LA is watching Fulham vs Burnley.

17th and 18th get relegated each season, 16th joins the play offs so have one last go at staying up ( a must watch do or die match every year).  

Bobs yer uncle.  

The big clubs already benefit from their financial position. Why should everyone else have their games, and therefore, gate revenue, reduced so the teams with 40 highly paid internationals can get a longer rest before their multi million pound champions league games? 

As it’s clubs like Liverpool who have proposed this you’d need to ask them for a more detailed answer but I think the basic concept is the financial backers only want them playing big matches all the time. A circuit of Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea, Man City, etc, and not the matches that attract less interest and no midweek dead rubbers that tire out the star players. 

Anyone looking at the Premiership could say okay these are the clubs with the largest appeal, when they play against each other that generates the most TV interest. On that basis the Premier league would be a lot smaller. 

I don't think that is right - there are plenty of big matches from week to week and the clubs earn very well. The biggest piece was no relegation, which leads to protection of investment and models american sport.

The American sports model massively reduces the risk of a financial catastrophe  and arguably is far more sustainable and promotes better / more unpredictable results year to year than football gives us.  In many ways, this would be both better for the clubs and better for the fans (more chance of winning) 

However, the romance of football is the ability to climb up the leagues. Everyone loves a non league to league success story, but the PL came and made the top of the Pyramid excessively steep and rewarded too heavily business investment. 

The ESL was football reaping what it sowed... chase the money, attract investors, increase the value - but this has made the top simultaneously monumentally difficult to achieve and massively expensive.

To be honest, in the current system, no one wins. The ESL was the wrong answer, but if football is to be reclaimed, then the money has to drop to levels where it is sustainable and where more clubs can compete and it has to somehow be awarded to clubs far more fairly.

honestly, I don't know what the answer is and I am positive the neither FIFA or UEFA want to support this as they also crave the bigger business and higher income. This was the only reason UEFA made such a stink against the ESL - they would get no income from it.

crunchman

The other key thing about US sports being sustainable is that they have salary caps.

In a lot of ways, the really bug clubs don't want that as it would level the playing field and let other clubs compete.  They couldn't just hoover up all the best talent by offering them twice as much money as other clubs.

Even those clubs are feeling the financial strain caused by their monster wage bills now though.

UEFA have tried to do something about wages with their financial fair play thing, but that just entrenches the big clubs at the top, as it is based on turnover.  The big clubs can still afford much higher wages than the smaller clubs, so they still hoover up the best players, and the pyramid is broken.  It's not possible for the clubs outside to break in any more.

This Superleague would have taken it a step further, but the system is already very broken.

Blackdream

crunchman said:

The other key thing about US sports being sustainable is that they have salary caps.

In a lot of ways, the really bug clubs don't want that as it would level the playing field and let other clubs compete.  They couldn't just hoover up all the best talent by offering them twice as much money as other clubs.

Even those clubs are feeling the financial strain caused by their monster wage bills now though.

UEFA have tried to do something about wages with their financial fair play thing, but that just entrenches the big clubs at the top, as it is based on turnover.  The big clubs can still afford much higher wages than the smaller clubs, so they still hoover up the best players, and the pyramid is broken.  It's not possible for the clubs outside to break in any more.

This Superleague would have taken it a step further, but the system is already very broken.

Spot on. I’m not going to defend the people who put the Super league together, but football finances are totally unsustainable. Even nominally profitable clubs are loaded with debt and reliant on the goodwill of their owners. FIFA,UEFA and the FA are not fit for purpose, but everyone in football bears some responsibility 

The big 6 players have been praised for helping stop the SL, but most of the money in football goes straight into their (and their agents) pockets. Klopp and Guardiola say they want competition, but they want it on their terms - they wouldn’t take a job at Brighton or Palace because they wouldn’t get a big enough transfer / wage budget to enable them to compete and the very highest level. 

A lot of clubs have pressure from fans also want to see their club spent big money on transfers. How many Liverpool fans protested when FSG spent £75 million on van Dijk? Some fans of my club (Huddersfield Town) are upset that former owner Dean Hoyle sold the club to another local businessman, rather than to an American sports company in a leveraged buyout, because it would have (temporarily) allowed a much larger player budget!

kin

The Price of Football - Digging deep behind the headline numbers to reveal what is really going on in football finance today.

JanekLubanski

Port Vale v Stoke City....Inter v AC...Roma v Lazio...Liverpool v Everton...Man U v Man City...River Plate v Boca Juniors...Newcastle v Sunderland...Notts C v Notts F...Bristol C v Bristol R...Sheffield U v Sheffield W..

Probably more derby games out there. But the big money game and massive bragging rites here  was always the Selby Town FC v  Tadcaster Albion .......until they decided to get promoted!!!

Nitefly

Who got promoted @JanekLubanski - Selby or Taddy?  Up the Robins, by the way - I spent quite some time in Selby in my childhood in the 50's and 60's.

JanekLubanski

Nitefly said:

Who got promoted @JanekLubanski - Selby or Taddy?  Up the Robins, by the way - I spent quite some time in Selby in my childhood in the 50's and 60's.

Tadcaster Albion got promoted (grrrr). Up The Robins.

crunchman

This kind of thing is why people are turning off:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/56875984

mrkb

crunchman said:

This kind of thing is why people are turning off:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/56875984

And the denial of a penalty to Arsenal because Pepes fingertip was offside 20 seconds before... the application of VAR is taking the fun out of the game.