Does 5% of European revenue mean only from Champions League and Europa League play, or also from domestic leagues? Because that seems awfully light, especially for the handful of teams that won’t be playing in those leagues next year.
New Euro Super league to be announced Sunday
- Thread starter Clears Cleaver
- Start date
I don’t think the main cause of the big clubs amassing too much talent is the lack of player power in getting out. Small teams aren’t selling their talented players to large teams against the players’ will. All players already have the right to block transfers. Transfers aren’t trades like in American sports, they actually have to get the players to agree to the new contracts and to agree to working at their new employer before the transfer can happen. That includes enticements like a (often considerable) salary increase.
Players also have all manner of means to get out if they want more playing time, including skipping out on training, telling the world they want a transfer, and formally requesting to be put on the transfer list (which does come at the cost of jeopardizing any loyalty bonus in the player’s salary). An out clause for playing time might help but player power in European football is such that a top player who’s unhappy usually finds a way to get out.
Back on the table. There will apparently be an announcement today, with varying reports reporting the clubs pushing the idea again. It seems obvious that the big Spanish and Italian clubs will be central but beyond that its kind of unclear.
They seem to be trying to correct arguably the two biggest mistakes they made last time, emphasizing that there will be no permanent members and that this would be a replacement for the CL, not for domestic leagues.
We'll see where this all goes.
View: https://twitter.com/AranchaMOBILE/status/1499375114953048065
They seem to be trying to correct arguably the two biggest mistakes they made last time, emphasizing that there will be no permanent members and that this would be a replacement for the CL, not for domestic leagues.
We'll see where this all goes.
View: https://twitter.com/AranchaMOBILE/status/1499375114953048065
Yeah, I agree. They are ghouls.
On one hand, I like the idea of a Champions League in which the best teams play each other. But this structure eliminates the chance for an exciting match-up or knock-out in the group stages, as well as seems to reduce the chance that a big club does not advance beyond the group stages -- for me, this outcome creates suspense.
That's a fair critique but also the status quo is an incredibly corrupt and incompetent UEFA putting out a shitty product that isn't monetized very well and unduly influenced by a different set of uber wealthy clubs owned by despotic petrostates.
The CL is really boring and its only going to get worse in a few years when they expand the format to 36 teams. Meanwhile, UEFA has no interest at all in using its position to do anything positive for the game in terms of enforcing financial fair play, putting limits on state-owned clubs, or doing anything about the increasing lack of competitiveness within many of the biggest domestic leagues.
Its perfectly reasonable to ask whether a new regulator pushed by the likes of Perez and Agnelli would really be better, but at least in theory there is a huge possibility for improvement because the status quo is terrible.
The status quo has been made worse by these same clubs lobbying for constant expansion so their financials aren’t ruined when they no longer win. They’ve created the monster I don’t see how they are also the solution.
IMO the very rich people running these clubs are being muscled out of the grift by primarily Qatar and are having fit about it. This has always been about revenue streams and the inability to compete when the CL money goes away
Any group of fans could come up with a more compelling Champions league format. I don’t happen to think the current structure is all that bad except for all the extra games non top 5 league teams have to play just to get in. Cup football will always lend itself to upsets so the easiest thing they could do is eliminate group stages and just make teams play constant do or die matches.
I do tend to agree with you on this. The question is how this super league would in any way be better? These clubs made it clear the first time around that they felt that they were entitled to more of the pie, and I think we agree that they already have too much pie. Anything they come up with will only be for their benefit. Put another way, what is wrong with the current system for Juventus, Barcelona or any of the other players?
UEFA is corrupt, you’re right. But I’d rather stick with the corruption I know than the corruption I don’t, and these mega clubs are corrupt too.
Agree here as well. They won’t eliminate the group stages because that could mean fewer games for top teams, though. I remember those dual group stages and do agree that the current system is a step up.
The initial attempt has left such a sour taste in my mouth that I still can’t bring myself to root for my beloved Barcelona. I watch their games simply to see if Dest is playing (and he’s been playing well lately). I find myself rooting against all of the teams involved in the initial super league attempt. I tune in for every Sevilla match hoping against all hope that they’ll win La Liga. Same thing with Napoli in Serie A. So I do have a natural bias against any second attempt at a super league and I readily admit it.
I think my overall problem is that these massive clubs think and act like they’re bigger than the game. The reality is that they’re not. Any one of them could be relegated down five tiers and the game wouldn’t miss a beat.
It's back.
I'm more sympathetic this time around, though I still condemn how the clubs did this originally. The teams involved came across as supremely arrogant and entitled. If the scope had been wider, permanent teams omitted, and the messaging framed around restoring some level of spending parity, then it may have had a shot. Having so many of the teams that represented the problem of have vs. have not completely destroyed the concept from the start.
The timing this time around is better. The January transfer window renewed the spotlight on the spending problem, not only within England itself but also England's power over the rest of the continent. Chelsea's spending spree's legality isn't easily understood by anybody, let alone casuals. City have just been caught in the spotlight again. Big teams are for sale with the general perception that ownership can no longer see a path to compete under the current rules.
I don't think any variant of the Super League solves this problem, but if this is more of a gambit to get UEFA to close loopholes and level the playing field then let's have at it.
I'm more sympathetic this time around, though I still condemn how the clubs did this originally. The teams involved came across as supremely arrogant and entitled. If the scope had been wider, permanent teams omitted, and the messaging framed around restoring some level of spending parity, then it may have had a shot. Having so many of the teams that represented the problem of have vs. have not completely destroyed the concept from the start.
The timing this time around is better. The January transfer window renewed the spotlight on the spending problem, not only within England itself but also England's power over the rest of the continent. Chelsea's spending spree's legality isn't easily understood by anybody, let alone casuals. City have just been caught in the spotlight again. Big teams are for sale with the general perception that ownership can no longer see a path to compete under the current rules.
I don't think any variant of the Super League solves this problem, but if this is more of a gambit to get UEFA to close loopholes and level the playing field then let's have at it.
"Financial sustainability rules should allow clubs to only spend a fixed percentage of their annual football-related revenue on player salaries and net transfers with appropriate provisions for smaller clubs and transition rules."
This remains the money quote and the central problem. Sign me not up for yet another system where the usual suspects try to tie spending to revenue generation so that they can permanently entrench themselves at the top. The most annoying thing about my club’s current predicament is that the rules that were created were idiotic and this just continues with that. Real Madrid, having spent years abusing everyone with their financial might, now wants to lock in a system where they get to outspend everyone because they got to grow first. It’s a shambolic approach.
This remains the money quote and the central problem. Sign me not up for yet another system where the usual suspects try to tie spending to revenue generation so that they can permanently entrench themselves at the top. The most annoying thing about my club’s current predicament is that the rules that were created were idiotic and this just continues with that. Real Madrid, having spent years abusing everyone with their financial might, now wants to lock in a system where they get to outspend everyone because they got to grow first. It’s a shambolic approach.
Real Madrid play in La Liga where that’s already the case. Your overall point remains though, that tying expenses to revenue (or in Spain’s case, projected revenue) is designed to keep the top teams at the top.
Club soccer is broken. I agree with any supporters of any Super League on that point. I think maybe we differ in how it’s broken or in the way to fix it. For me, the biggest clubs have too much money and spend too much money compared to the rest, so the solution isn’t to create a system that rewards these teams with even more guaranteed revenue. Any club who wants to join a Super League already benefits from the system as it is. It’s solely designed for them to get an even bigger advantage, to keep even more money.
I’ll just stick to La Liga because it’s what I know best. In my lifetime, Real Sociedad, Athletic Club, Depor, and Valencia have won La Liga, but the last of those was 20 years ago. I don’t see any way that any of these clubs, or any other outside of Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Atleti win La Liga ever. The introduction of mass amounts of money, regardless of the source- oil or whatever- has killed the game.
We agree. My point is that if these cretins were serious about actually making the playing field level they’d be proposing spending caps and luxury taxes. Instead every time these usual suspects approach this topic they try to codify their financial advantage so they can remain at the top. They couch it as money “earned” as if the vast majority of the money isn’t from whoring their brands out globally. And those brands, of course, have more value because they used to outspend everyone and thus have more relevance globally. Remember when Leicester improbably won the prem? In the world these people supposedly inhabit they would have apparently jumped up to being able to spend like United but of course in the real world they got a small jump in prize money and had their club picked apart by richer clubs.
Fans continuing to support these proposals of clubs which aren’t the existing top clubs are Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. If the architects of the current FFP and this super league proposal were proposing actual things to solve the problems of potential limitless funds in football I’d fully support them. As it stands they just remain businesses trying to ensure they can guarantee the annual income of the SL/CL cash