https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer ... d=msedgntp

Let the debate begin. I for one, hate the idea.

Acording to Dutch radio news several football associations have already gone into revolt. Claiming that any club participating in this scam won’t be allowed to play thrir respective leagues, and that their players won’t be invited to the national teams. If true, that would scuttle the super league.

Meanwhile, the champions league has been redesigned as well in response to the proposed super league.

• There will be more clubs (36 instead of 32)
• There will be 100 more games
• All teams will play 10 games against 10 different teams
• Which teams and home or away to be based on a draw.

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediase ... m-2024-25/

I think the big clubs have overplayed there hand. The German club's not wanting to go along and British football fans going bunkers over it, hopefully will put the nails in the coffin of this stupid idea for a few years...

petertenthije wrote:

Acording to Dutch radio news several football associations have already gone into revolt. Claiming that any club participating in this scam won’t be allowed to play thrir respective leagues, and that their players won’t be invited to the national teams. If true, that would scuttle the super league.

I think FIFA and UEFA are overestimating their leverage. The World Cup and Champions League are only as popular as the teams playing.

It’s fun to watch the under dogs, but the World Cup viewership would plummet if there were no star players from England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, etc. Games like Senegal vs Tunisia don’t bring in the big bucks.

Same with the champions league, take out the big clubs and it’s dead. Think you’ll get a lot of people watching Ostersunds vs Besitkas in the final? Meanwhile Barcelona vs Juventus is going on in the ESL

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I think the big clubs have overplayed there hand. The German club's not wanting to go along and British football fans going bunkers over it, hopefully will put the nails in the coffin of this stupid idea for a few years...

I hope you are right. The greed of the "already haves" is on full display here, much to the detriment of the vast majority of teams - and fans - spread all over Europe.

FGITD : the new league members wouldn't participate in the champions' league so that point is moot.

Plenty of players dream of playing (and scoring, and winning) in the world cup, so if they can't because of this league that will bring them nothing much (some more money, but they already earn plenty, including more and more aside from their salaries), then they will be against it. French teams so far are not interested.

Personally I'm not a fan of football, I watch my team's world cup and euro matches basically, and can miss a couple without a sweat (despite the team in question getting good results regularly during my lifetime).

What I don't like about football is that it sucks a lot of public money. It looks to me like this league would generate more money, that wouldn't get into amateur clubs, national schools etc., so that would lead to the need for even more public money.

On the other hand if that league promised to finance such things then I might be all for it, but I doubt that will happen, this is about greed, nothing else.

FGITD wrote:

I think FIFA and UEFA are overestimating their leverage. The World Cup and Champions League are only as popular as the teams playing.

True, loosing the CL is no big deal to these teams if the super league starts. But loosing access to their national competitions is a significant threat.

Also, the teams might not care if their players are no longer called to play for the national teams. But I am not sure if the players would accept it. This proposal might limit the players willing to play for the super league teams.

Interesting move. We will see if it comes to fruition. Hopefully, the EUFA and FIFA will not exclude the players from these clubs to participate in the national teams. Too much money in football. These clubs want to have more money and do this with this protected competition.

petertenthije wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I think FIFA and UEFA are overestimating their leverage. The World Cup and Champions League are only as popular as the teams playing.

True, loosing the CL is no big deal to these teams if the super league starts. But loosing access to their national competitions is a significant threat.

Also, the teams might not care if their players are no longer called to play for the national teams. But I am not sure if the players would accept it. This proposal might limit the players willing to play for the super league teams.

The CL dies without top clubs, simple as that. UEFA attaches too much weight to their own tournament.

Clubs by all logic should be thrilled if their players aren’t or cannot be called up. I love international play, but it’s always been a bit nonsense that National teams can call up and overplay (injure) a clubs investment. you spend 200k on a car to use every week, but your neighbor is entitled to it a few times a year and if he wrecks it...oh well, it’s your car after all.

I don’t like the ESL idea, but realistically the clubs have the power because they are what bring in the money. Even the EPL are lying to themselves if they think the league will keep being the biggest if they boot those 6 out. The millions of international fans will continue to watch Man Utd rather than jump ship

I totally oppose the Super League, but the devil's advocate in me says that this may be a preemptive strike against UEFA's plans for the CL.

IMO there are too many games already. PL, FA Cup, Carabao Cup. Add European games, the international friendlies, European Championships, World Cup Qualifiers, it's practically a 12 month sport now. UEFA wants to expand the CL (and make them more money), and now FIFA wants a World Clubs tournament expanded too.

I hope this is the case and they aren't serious, just bargaining. Even so, the OVERWHELMING opinion is negative, even Boris and Wills are weighing in.

Why should some teams be guaranteed places in the Super League? I like the idea that the most modest team can work its way up the league structure to the Champions league. And I like the idea that even the most famous teams in the world are not immune to relegation. That's the way sports should be. Furthermore, can you really call it "Super League" without the likes of Bayern Munich, or Borussia Dortmund? It's the height of greed and arrogance, for these 12 prima donna teams to declare themselves the "Super League", and members for life.

If there is anything to learn from prior splits in other sports, its rarely good for anyone. That said, I have low faith in FIFA being able to run as a transparent organization and hope this kind of pressure could lead to some reform/cleaning up of the org.

victrola wrote:

Why should some teams be guaranteed places in the Super League? I like the idea that the most modest team can work its way up the league structure to the Champions league. And I like the idea that even the most famous teams in the world are not immune to relegation. That's the way sports should be. Furthermore, can you really call it "Super League" without the likes of Bayern Munich, or Borussia Dortmund? It's the height of greed and arrogance, for these 12 prima donna teams to declare themselves the "Super League", and members for life.

- and Paris Saint-Germain! Don't forget PSG; they are becoming a favorite of mine...

- and Paris Saint-Germain! Don't forget PSG; they are becoming a favorite of mine...


Good point

T18 wrote:

If there is anything to learn from prior splits in other sports, its rarely good for anyone. That said, I have low faith in FIFA being able to run as a transparent organization and hope this kind of pressure could lead to some reform/cleaning up of the org.

Sadly very true.

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting move. We will see if it comes to fruition. Hopefully, the EUFA and FIFA will not exclude the players from these clubs to participate in the national teams. Too much money in football. These clubs want to have more money and do this with this protected competition.

Actually, long term, the World Cup DIES if this goes through, because it basically will directly compete with it. Also, the non-European nations will have no shot at being competitive as they will never have a chance to train their national teams, that is one of the many reasons for this move (the teams basically do not want to release their players any longer). Thus the World Cup will become just as interesting as the FIBA world cup (anyone interested in that?). Eventually FIFA will be done, which may not be a bad thing in a way, but no one will accept UEFA as a replacement, therefore, the football world will have as schism between different continents that do not cooperate with each other.

It will make football a merely regional sport in the long term, and no one outside Europe will have any interest in watching teams and players they can never go see themselves in a stadium. It will actually dry the talent pool as the move will atrophy European smaller clubs and kill interest in the sport in the poorest places in Africa and Asia. The European top clubs believe everyone just lives to watch them, or will simply do anything to watch the league. I have NEVER watched the Champions league, never will. And I will never watch the Premier, Liga, Bundesliga, etc. There is personal no interest for me and there are many other things to do these days. People may point at the NBA, but the NBA is exactly the reason basketball has not even remotely become as global as football. People say they love it and many do follow it, but it remains a low percentage of followers outside the US, because ultimately, people want a personal connection with their sport team and the can never go watch an NBA game themselves.

It is not a terrible idea in its own right, and marketing wise and probably quality wise it could be a great product. The problem is that what the owners are ostensibly claiming as the reasons for the move are outright lies, and an insult to any person. They claim it is to give fans what they want, and improve football around the world. Both are lies and the fact that Real Madrid president even had the nerve to claim so, proves he knows the exact opposite will result.

Fans in their own clubs oppose it almost universally thus far (though sports fans tend to be conservative so this is not necessarily a surprise), and they have no interest in helping football in the world. They want in fact to kill the World Cup (why I really don't know since it will hurt them massively long term), they want to kill FIFA (I get this part but still it will be detrimental), and worse than those two, it will be a huge retreat for the football player's rights. There is no way the player can come out as stronger or having more power his / her own destiny since clearly the owners want more control over them, and they will use the lure of huge money to get it. And lastly the almost lack of relegation, if the other three didn't make it clear to you, does make it transparent that this 100% about the owners and NO one or nothing else. I hope players see through it, and that other clubs and leagues can offer lucrative contracts to obviate the hypothetical Super League as the only place to secure your family's finances generationally.

It's a bad idea not because of the concept, but because everyone knows it comes from a bad place: the owners pockets.

Denmark FA chairman Jesper Moller says he expects the five rebel clubs that remain in European competition this season to be expelled from their respective semi-finals by the end of this week.
Moller, who sits on the UEFA executive committee, told DR that he expects any of the 12 clubs still in Europe to be excluded by Friday at the latest.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... a-20420972

petertenthije wrote:

Denmark FA chairman Jesper Moller says he expects the five rebel clubs that remain in European competition this season to be expelled from their respective semi-finals by the end of this week.
Moller, who sits on the UEFA executive committee, told DR that he expects any of the 12 clubs still in Europe to be excluded by Friday at the latest.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... a-20420972

So he'd cancel the rest of the Champion's League? That's RM, Chelsea, Man City and PSG right there.I'm sure few outside Manchester would give a toss about Europe League being cancelled, hut cancelling The Big One?

I agree in general this Super League smacks of pure greed and would put a severe hurt on the respective leagues, but I also agree with many of the clubs playing at that level year in, year out, that the schedules are out of control. Something has to give.

UEFA booting Real, Chelsea and City out of the Champions League - effectively handing it to PSG - would be very damaging to the Champions League and to UEFA. These clubs aren’t big because they call themselves “big”; they’re powerhouse brands with millions (if not billions) of followers. Slaying your cash cows is pyrrhic at best.

Worth pointing out though - that this is the inevitable consequence of UEFA mismanagement for years. Financial Fair Play should have been instituted in the early 2000s. Instead UEFA happily took all the money they could get their hands on through the Chelsea/PSG/City/Leipzig upstart types, and created Frankensteins they can’t control. Chelsea and City were nothing till they bought their way to silverware. Now they’re CL semi finalists and global brands.

It’s hard not to oppose the whole thing - 3 of the 6 English clubs dont/shouldn’t qualify as top 6 in their own league, but they want guaranteed Champions League revenue every year. And since they can’t have that, they’ve come up with this hare brained idea.

The only silver lining is that it shines a light on how badly UEFA has managed the game for 15 years now. The whole organization should be shuttered and replaced by something new.

ElPistolero wrote:

The only silver lining is that it shines a light on how badly UEFA has managed the game for 15 years now. The whole organization should be shuttered and replaced by something new.

UEFA is somehow shocked that after decades of allowing clubs to become billionaire playthings that those billionaires would be interested in expanding their profits even more.

The criticism from FIFA is great too. They want to talk about the tradition and dignity of the sport but still awarded a World Cup to Qatar and have turned a blind eye to thousands of migrant deaths

Let's get one thing straight from the start: UEFA is the association of European football associations, governing the CL and EL as well as the European Cup (amongst other things). FIFA is the global association, running the World Cup. This is primarily between UEFA and the SL founders, and UEFA seems to think they're well within their rights to exclude the SL founders from any and all UEFA activities.

European football, and sports in general, are build on the "pyramid" system, meaning that any club has the chance of progressing up through the ranks, just as any club faces the prospect of relegation if they don't perform. The SL proposes to dispense with this principle, in favour of the US system of having clubs playing in a protected league from which promotion or relegation is impossible. European fans don't want that, and neither does the national, European and Global football associations.

UEFA does have two powerful weapons up their sleeves: Exclusion from European leagues (CL and EL) as well as from national leagues. Imagine a club like Man City, Juventus or Barcelona being excluded from their national leagues; the fans would go absolutely ape-shit and the resulting loss of revenue would vastly outmatch whatever they are hoping to gain from participation in the SL over the CL or EL games.

What this is all about, is to a very large extent non-European owned clubs looking to extract a bigger pile of the TV cash, in an effort to make very rich people even richer. Nothing more or less. In it's present form a fairly substantial amount of the TV revenue from CL and EL games are funnelled to the national football associations, who use that money to fund youth and development programs. The SL will have none of that, and as a result national associations will be starved of funds to the detriment of the long-term prospects of the game. But the owners of these SL clubs couldn't give a toss about the long-term; they are driven by greed and wish to see all the money in their pockets now, and screw the long-term consequences.

It is therefore very encouraging to see the aggressive stance adopted by UEFA (whom, just for the record, I despise just as much as I despise FIFA), particularly the threat of excluding the founding members of SL from the CL and EL as soon as Friday this week. That hits them right where it hurts the most: in their pockets. One can only hope that the national leagues follow suit and threaten them with expulsion as soon as possible. That will kill the SL so dead it is highly unlikely ever to be resurrected.

PS
The chairman of the SL and Real Madrid (same person) is out today saying the creation of SL is done to "save football". Yeah, right, that's just about as convincing as a prostitute claiming she's screwing for virginity.

Great idea as it would make football much more in line with big trademarks like the NHL and the NBA. It would also free team brands from the chains of being linked to one city, they could become global. Imagine clubs based all around the globe and with the best players in one league. Arsenal Dubai has a much better ring to it than Arsenal London. FC Bayern New York instead of the provincial German town.

The above poster displays a remarkable lack of understanding of what football is, its history and its fanbase. Football fans support their local club, and perhaps a big foreign club (e.g. Barcelona and Liverpool has a very large foreign fanbase). But those fanbases are founded in the history of the clubs, their relevance and allegiance to their city and region. Transplanting Arsenal to Dubai would mean that Arsenal would no longer be playing in the English premier league and they would not be eligible to play in either CL or EL. That would result in a rapid and irreversible disappearance of its fanbase, as well as economic ruin as it would no longer benefit from the TV deals secured by the FA and UEFA.

The trademarks of football is not FIFA, UEFA or FA. It's Barcelona, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Dortmund, Ajax Amsterdam, Manchester United, Bayern Munich, FC Milan etc. Notice how the city name is an integrated part of the name. The NHL, NFL and NBA model is everything football shouldn't be.

Why is it trolling? This is exactly the same idea as the NFL, NBA and NHL. It takes not much fantasy to see those 15 clubs having farm teams in the national leagues and create something like the draft. And once you do not have to qualify for the participation in your national league, it makes it easy to move your team from one city to another or later to another continent.

Look at the American leagues and the add the global popularity of football (soccer) to imagine the financial possibilities. For the investors into those companies, it surely is a great way to make more money from the investment.

Football is no longer about the fans 30-40,000 spectators sitting in a stadium don’t bring in anywhere near the revenue 5 billion TV viewers will.

Super League matches will be played all over the world and attract 80-100,000 spectators per match in foreign cities, and millions more TV viewers in those countries. And then the merchandise. Most fans sitting in Anfield have already bought their Liverpool scarves, when the team plays in Beijing or Dubai there’s millions more potential buyers.

Which will bring in more viewers? A league with weekly matches like Man Utd vs Barca and Real vs Chelsea, or Brighton and Hove Albion vs Sheffield United?

It’s been all about money for a while now. This is just a continuation of that. Sure traditionalists will moan. But I suspect they’ll continue to support their teams. Obviously they now want the ultimate prize of winning the Super League.

For the teams however it’s easy. They are businesses, not sporting clubs. Ask any owner whether they would prefer larger returns for shareholders or more trophies in the cabinet, and you’ll only get one answer....

So how is the CL not greedy by increasing the number of games and expanding the number of teams?
How is the increase in games good for the health of the players or the level of competition, are the games really watchable of just a reason to go out drinking?
FIFA has had a world of scandals and money issues, but they are not greedy, the global bribery show to see who will host the world cup is the epitome of greed.
Do we know the SL plans for development of the game, getting young players in etc? The club names alone will not ensure success, the quality of play will.
The football fans who go to games in their local stadiums like the fact that their games are seen around the world, love the money and attention that the foreign players bring in along with their talent, love the money that foreign investors put in to allow fancy new stadiums etc. but now they want to expel the foreign owners because they want a bigger piece of the pie?
How about the PL, does anyone remember the complaints about the low number of local English players? Where was / is the development of local talent that the millions in TV right and transfer fees was supposed to bring?

Reality is that football is a global game, the European authorities in conjunction with the clubs have been pushing their product globally through naming rights, TV etc. so now the world of big finance is getting involved.

I thought when the CL was founded that was a greed move as well, how times have changed.

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting move. We will see if it comes to fruition. Hopefully, the EUFA and FIFA will not exclude the players from these clubs to participate in the national teams. Too much money in football. These clubs want to have more money and do this with this protected competition.

If the players have any integrity they will quit, football is nothing without the fans, the players know this. It's player who are considering boycotting the Qatar world cup, as they should.

scbriml wrote:

I can't see there's any legal basis by which those clubs could be thrown out of UEFA competitions this season. Likewise, I can't see how banning individual players from representing their country because of an action by their club would stand up in court. For example, the FA might simply chose not to select Harry Kane to play for England, but I'd be surprised if they were able to actually ban him as long as he played for a team in the SL.

It happened in Rugby, the NZRFU cancelled the planned 1985 tour to South Africa, so the players decided to go anyway and played as the Cavaliers. The NZRFU then banned the players for a number of matches, most of them senior All Blacks, they were replaced by the Baby Blacks. The mostly Baby Blacks All Black formed the nucleus of the team who won the first Rugby World Cup in 87 and dominated the game for a decade or so.

Kiwirob wrote:

If the players have any integrity they will quit, football is nothing without the fans, the players know this.

Which fans, especially for the international players who are playing in these European leagues, the fans who go to the stadiums, those who watch domestically in the UK / EU, or the millions other who watch outside of the UK / EU?

In essence, this is what this whole issue is about, international involvement in domestic football, if you want international participation you get international influence, one cannot have their cake and eat it too.

seahawk wrote:

Why is it trolling? This is exactly the same idea as the NFL, NBA and NHL. It takes not much fantasy to see those 15 clubs having farm teams in the national leagues and create something like the draft. And once you do not have to qualify for the participation in your national league, it makes it easy to move your team from one city to another or later to another continent.

Look at the American leagues and the add the global popularity of football (soccer) to imagine the financial possibilities. For the investors into those companies, it surely is a great way to make more money from the investment.

This is a typically American attitude to team sports, fans in Europe don't want this, they hate this idea with a passion, fans want to see non performing teams relegated, just as they want to see teams from lower divisions succeed and move into the Premier leagues. It's the fundamental difference between how sport is run in Europe and America. You can see why these teams are doing this, there is a solid core of US owership in these proposed league, these owners have failed to understand the sport they are in and where this will lead them to. Put simply the fans who fill the stadiums and buy the merch will walk away.

One of the reason I stopped watching F1 is because they moved the sport away from its base in Europe and filled the calendar with shitty Hermann Tilke designed generic racetracks in shitty countries where the stands were mostly empty, the worst example of this is they're going to Jeddah this year, disgusting.

scbriml wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Denmark FA chairman Jesper Moller says he expects the five rebel clubs that remain in European competition this season to be expelled from their respective semi-finals by the end of this week.
Moller, who sits on the UEFA executive committee, told DR that he expects any of the 12 clubs still in Europe to be excluded by Friday at the latest.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... a-20420972

I can't see there's any legal basis by which those clubs could be thrown out of UEFA competitions this season. Likewise, I can't see how banning individual players from representing their country because of an action by their club would stand up in court. For example, the FA might simply chose not to select Harry Kane to play for England, but I'd be surprised if they were able to actually ban him as long as he played for a team in the SL.

ElPistolero wrote:

The only silver lining is that it shines a light on how badly UEFA has managed the game for 15 years now. The whole organization should be shuttered and replaced by something new.

It could be argued that this would be the first step along the way to that happening. Revolution, if you will. That doesn't mean I agree with it, quite the opposite.

The attacks/threats against players are indeed absurd. They had no part in this, but absolute numpties (Gary Neville, anyone) are using vitriol that’s putting completely innocent players and managers in the firing line.

As to the latter, if this is, indeed, the first shot of the revolution, then perhaps we wait to see what it achieves, as opposed to what it claims to seek it achieves.

I don’t think it’s any secret that football administration needs an overhaul.

Archaic stupidity like not broadcasting 3 PM matches in the UK (do they really think the big 6 stadiums won’t fill up regardless?); the failure to institute any kind of financial fair play, at the UEFA or League levels; UEFA inconsistency in the management of TV revenue (RM and FCB doing their own thing there, with implications for CL) ... theres a lot of nonsense baked into the system that needs to be fixed.

UEFA and the leagues have created these issues (and Frankensteins). There was always going to be a reckoning. The club owners have picked now.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Football is no longer about the fans 30-40,000 spectators sitting in a stadium don’t bring in anywhere near the revenue 5 billion TV viewers will.

Super League matches will be played all over the world and attract 80-100,000 spectators per match in foreign cities, and millions more TV viewers in those countries. And then the merchandise. Most fans sitting in Anfield have already bought their Liverpool scarves, when the team plays in Beijing or Dubai there’s millions more potential buyers.

Which will bring in more viewers? A league with weekly matches like Man Utd vs Barca and Real vs Chelsea, or Brighton and Hove Albion vs Sheffield United?

It’s been all about money for a while now. This is just a continuation of that. Sure traditionalists will moan. But I suspect they’ll continue to support their teams. Obviously they now want the ultimate prize of winning the Super League.

For the teams however it’s easy. They are businesses, not sporting clubs. Ask any owner whether they would prefer larger returns for shareholders or more trophies in the cabinet, and you’ll only get one answer....

Think the big issue with SL is that it’s a closed league. Which means you have utterly mediocre teams like Arsenal and Spurs (and, more recently, Liverpool) guaranteed a place in the Super League while being mid-table dross in the EPL.

That’s 25% of this Super League - teams that frankly don’t belong there on merit. Which begs the question - what’s the point?

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting move. We will see if it comes to fruition. Hopefully, the EUFA and FIFA will not exclude the players from these clubs to participate in the national teams. Too much money in football. These clubs want to have more money and do this with this protected competition.

I disagree. As a competition not sanctioned by FIFA or UEFA, I hope all clubs involved are booted out the domestic leagues and players prevented from international games.

Too much greed in football. Time to fight back.

FGITD wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Acording to Dutch radio news several football associations have already gone into revolt. Claiming that any club participating in this scam won’t be allowed to play thrir respective leagues, and that their players won’t be invited to the national teams. If true, that would scuttle the super league.

I think FIFA and UEFA are overestimating their leverage. The World Cup and Champions League are only as popular as the teams playing.

It’s fun to watch the under dogs, but the World Cup viewership would plummet if there were no star players from England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, etc. Games like Senegal vs Tunisia don’t bring in the big bucks.

Same with the champions league, take out the big clubs and it’s dead. Think you’ll get a lot of people watching Ostersunds vs Besitkas in the final? Meanwhile Barcelona vs Juventus is going on in the ESL

It’ll only be England, Spain and Italy without the bigger names.

If you think punters will happily pay to watch Arsenal v Inter Milan four times a year, you’ll be surprised.

seahawk wrote:

Great idea as it would make football much more in line with big trademarks like the NHL and the NBA. It would also free team brands from the chains of being linked to one city, they could become global. Imagine clubs based all around the globe and with the best players in one league. Arsenal Dubai has a much better ring to it than Arsenal London. FC Bayern New York instead of the provincial German town.

Sorry but this is absolute nonsense.

The franchise system may work in America, with the dull sports within the nation, but would not work in Europe with established clubs.

Lose the identity of a club and you lose the club.

The real issue is whether the Super league has the legs to out reach the EUFA. 12 teams is not exactly awe inspiring for club dynamics and trades. This really feels like a power move to take over the control of the Leagues within Europe. If they can get to 20 teams, this may workout as they can offer outstanding matches with outstanding talent in league play.

The rotating members is no go based on the current politics in place, and offers a disincentive to mediocre teams to want to join. They should go for a fixed membership and franchise fees for those not in the original league launch date.

noviorbis77 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Acording to Dutch radio news several football associations have already gone into revolt. Claiming that any club participating in this scam won’t be allowed to play thrir respective leagues, and that their players won’t be invited to the national teams. If true, that would scuttle the super league.

I think FIFA and UEFA are overestimating their leverage. The World Cup and Champions League are only as popular as the teams playing.

It’s fun to watch the under dogs, but the World Cup viewership would plummet if there were no star players from England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, etc. Games like Senegal vs Tunisia don’t bring in the big bucks.

Same with the champions league, take out the big clubs and it’s dead. Think you’ll get a lot of people watching Ostersunds vs Besitkas in the final? Meanwhile Barcelona vs Juventus is going on in the ESL

It’ll only be England, Spain and Italy without the bigger names.

If you think punters will happily pay to watch Arsenal v Inter Milan four times a year, you’ll be surprised.

These businessmen/owners are many things, but stupid they are not. They’ve war-gamed this several times over, and know what the “deal” is.

The reality is - these leagues don’t actually have much global appeal when you take the big 6 out of the equation. That’s where the global fan base is. No one in South East Asia is buying a TV subscription to watch West Brom v Fulham (frankly anybody supporting an Allardyce team shouldn’t be allowed to call them self a football fan). They will, however, buy subscriptions to watch a league with all of these teams (either in ESL format, or a league format). Spectacle is key here. People want to watch high quality football with the best players, not park-the-bus football.

We may want to believe that the identity of a club is important, but is it? The whole Chelsea/City phenomenon has blow a giant gaping hole in that notion. What is Chelsea’s identity? What is Manchester City’s? They’ve bought their silverware, and they’ve been rewarded well for it. Where was the Premier League then?

They - and Leipzig and PSG - have shown that clubs can build global fan bases through heavy investment. That reality is the basis for the ESL.

Without the big 6, the EPL is Championship Mk II. It’s never going to attract the best players or a global audience. I suspect - on the EPL side - some of this is payback for the way the smaller clubs tried to ham string the big ones by refusing to agree to the 5-sub rule in an overly congested and condensed one-off season. That kind of false equivalency leads to these demonstrations of power. Throw in silliness like no broadcasting 3 PM kick offs .... and, well, there was always going to be a stand off.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Lose the identity of a club and you lose the club.

I disagree. Wimbledon FC were a club in south London. Somehow they ended up becoming MK Dons, in a town (city ?) 60 miles away
Arsenal was originally a football club for people at the Royal Arsenal munition factory in Woolwich, south east London (hence the club's name and cannon logo). Now they are in north London and apart from the logo have little or no link to the area where they used to be based

Football clubs are brands. The typical kid who lives in Indonesia and supports Liverpool FC has most likely never been to the UK
Football has become just a way for people to exhibit tribalism in a legal and publicly respectable way without having to go to the trouble of actually killing people from the neighbouring tribe because they burnt you crops, stole your gold and ravaged your women

MK Dons. Third and fourth tier side.

Didn’t work out did it.

Woolich Arsenal moved in the 19th Century. Not really relevant for todays game.

Anyway, Chelsea are pulling out of ESL.

It’ll probably collapse. Maybe goodbye Real Madrid and Barcelona. Not sure they can survive their billion Euro plus debts.

https://www.sportbible.com/football/fai ... n-20210128

Football clubs are not brands. They are identities.

Chelsea are reportedly withdrawing.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56823501

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I think FIFA and UEFA are overestimating their leverage. The World Cup and Champions League are only as popular as the teams playing.

It’s fun to watch the under dogs, but the World Cup viewership would plummet if there were no star players from England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, etc. Games like Senegal vs Tunisia don’t bring in the big bucks.

Same with the champions league, take out the big clubs and it’s dead. Think you’ll get a lot of people watching Ostersunds vs Besitkas in the final? Meanwhile Barcelona vs Juventus is going on in the ESL

It’ll only be England, Spain and Italy without the bigger names.

If you think punters will happily pay to watch Arsenal v Inter Milan four times a year, you’ll be surprised.

These businessmen/owners are many things, but stupid they are not. They’ve war-gamed this several times over, and know what the “deal” is.

The reality is - these leagues don’t actually have much global appeal when you take the big 6 out of the equation. That’s where the global fan base is. No one in South East Asia is buying a TV subscription to watch West Brom v Fulham (frankly anybody supporting an Allardyce team shouldn’t be allowed to call them self a football fan). They will, however, buy subscriptions to watch a league with all of these teams (either in ESL format, or a league format). Spectacle is key here. People want to watch high quality football with the best players, not park-the-bus football.

We may want to believe that the identity of a club is important, but is it? The whole Chelsea/City phenomenon has blow a giant gaping hole in that notion. What is Chelsea’s identity? What is Manchester City’s? They’ve bought their silverware, and they’ve been rewarded well for it. Where was the Premier League then?

They - and Leipzig and PSG - have shown that clubs can build global fan bases through heavy investment. That reality is the basis for the ESL.

Without the big 6, the EPL is Championship Mk II. It’s never going to attract the best players or a global audience. I suspect - on the EPL side - some of this is payback for the way the smaller clubs tried to ham string the big ones by refusing to agree to the 5-sub rule in an overly congested and condensed one-off season. That kind of false equivalency leads to these demonstrations of power. Throw in silliness like no broadcasting 3 PM kick offs .... and, well, there was always going to be a stand off.

TBH, I am sure most English supporters like me couldn’t careless about the global brand. We’d happily see less money in the game, without the big name players.

We’d prefer to support our local teams in a competitive league, whereby teams win leagues on merit and not by buying the league.

Sadly money talks though. Until we can get a German model in England, nothing will change.

noviorbis77 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Lose the identity of a club and you lose the club.

I disagree. Wimbledon FC were a club in south London. Somehow they ended up becoming MK Dons, in a town (city ?) 60 miles away
Arsenal was originally a football club for people at the Royal Arsenal munition factory in Woolwich, south east London (hence the club's name and cannon logo). Now they are in north London and apart from the logo have little or no link to the area where they used to be based

Football clubs are brands. The typical kid who lives in Indonesia and supports Liverpool FC has most likely never been to the UK
Football has become just a way for people to exhibit tribalism in a legal and publicly respectable way without having to go to the trouble of actually killing people from the neighbouring tribe because they burnt you crops, stole your gold and ravaged your women

MK Dons. Third and fourth tier side.

Didn’t work out did it.

Woolich Arsenal moved in the 19th Century. Not really relevant for todays game.

Anyway, Chelsea are pulling out of ESL.

It’ll probably collapse. Maybe goodbye Real Madrid and Barcelona. Not sure they can survive their billion Euro plus debts.

https://www.sportbible.com/football/fai ... n-20210128

Football clubs are not brands. They are identities.

They are not static identities - they can be moulded to fit anyone.

Don’t need to be a scouser to be an LFC or EFC fan.

Don’t have to be mancunian to be an MUFC or MCFC fan.

These teams won’t lose their identity - at the most they may lose some hardcore local fans.

noviorbis77 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

It’ll only be England, Spain and Italy without the bigger names.

If you think punters will happily pay to watch Arsenal v Inter Milan four times a year, you’ll be surprised.

These businessmen/owners are many things, but stupid they are not. They’ve war-gamed this several times over, and know what the “deal” is.

The reality is - these leagues don’t actually have much global appeal when you take the big 6 out of the equation. That’s where the global fan base is. No one in South East Asia is buying a TV subscription to watch West Brom v Fulham (frankly anybody supporting an Allardyce team shouldn’t be allowed to call them self a football fan). They will, however, buy subscriptions to watch a league with all of these teams (either in ESL format, or a league format). Spectacle is key here. People want to watch high quality football with the best players, not park-the-bus football.

We may want to believe that the identity of a club is important, but is it? The whole Chelsea/City phenomenon has blow a giant gaping hole in that notion. What is Chelsea’s identity? What is Manchester City’s? They’ve bought their silverware, and they’ve been rewarded well for it. Where was the Premier League then?

They - and Leipzig and PSG - have shown that clubs can build global fan bases through heavy investment. That reality is the basis for the ESL.

Without the big 6, the EPL is Championship Mk II. It’s never going to attract the best players or a global audience. I suspect - on the EPL side - some of this is payback for the way the smaller clubs tried to ham string the big ones by refusing to agree to the 5-sub rule in an overly congested and condensed one-off season. That kind of false equivalency leads to these demonstrations of power. Throw in silliness like no broadcasting 3 PM kick offs .... and, well, there was always going to be a stand off.

TBH, I am sure most English supporters like me couldn’t careless about the global brand. We’d happily see less money in the game, without the big name players.

We’d prefer to support our local teams in a competitive league, whereby teams win leagues on merit and not by buying the league.

Sadly money talks though. Until we can get a German model in England, nothing will change.

But you already have that. Virtually every region has a Championship, League 1 or League 2 team. Support them instead and let these teams do what they do best - generate silly revenue, play outstanding football, get the best players, and project national soft power.

noviorbis77 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

It’ll only be England, Spain and Italy without the bigger names.

If you think punters will happily pay to watch Arsenal v Inter Milan four times a year, you’ll be surprised.

These businessmen/owners are many things, but stupid they are not. They’ve war-gamed this several times over, and know what the “deal” is.

The reality is - these leagues don’t actually have much global appeal when you take the big 6 out of the equation. That’s where the global fan base is. No one in South East Asia is buying a TV subscription to watch West Brom v Fulham (frankly anybody supporting an Allardyce team shouldn’t be allowed to call them self a football fan). They will, however, buy subscriptions to watch a league with all of these teams (either in ESL format, or a league format). Spectacle is key here. People want to watch high quality football with the best players, not park-the-bus football.

We may want to believe that the identity of a club is important, but is it? The whole Chelsea/City phenomenon has blow a giant gaping hole in that notion. What is Chelsea’s identity? What is Manchester City’s? They’ve bought their silverware, and they’ve been rewarded well for it. Where was the Premier League then?

They - and Leipzig and PSG - have shown that clubs can build global fan bases through heavy investment. That reality is the basis for the ESL.

Without the big 6, the EPL is Championship Mk II. It’s never going to attract the best players or a global audience. I suspect - on the EPL side - some of this is payback for the way the smaller clubs tried to ham string the big ones by refusing to agree to the 5-sub rule in an overly congested and condensed one-off season. That kind of false equivalency leads to these demonstrations of power. Throw in silliness like no broadcasting 3 PM kick offs .... and, well, there was always going to be a stand off.

TBH, I am sure most English supporters like me couldn’t careless about the global brand. We’d happily see less money in the game, without the big name players.

We’d prefer to support our local teams in a competitive league, whereby teams win leagues on merit and not by buying the league.

Sadly money talks though. Until we can get a German model in England, nothing will change.

It’s too late for that though, the clubs are already global brands. The local support has already been thrown to the side, because it’s the international markets that bring in the big bucks. Look at preseason-used to be a summer camp in Austria or Spain for most, now it’s a global tour to Southeast Asia, or North America where they’ll sell out NFL stadiums for a friendly.

Arsene Wenger warned everyone. You let billionaires buy teams, and this is bound to happen. Letting the best team win by merit has been dead for decades, but the final nail was letting someone like Abramovich buy a second rate club and buy their way into trophies within just a few years.

It’s one of the reasons I somewhat struggle to throw Tottenham and Arsenal into the same pile as the rest. For one, they aren’t as good, but also neither has been backed by spending hundreds of millions every transfer window. Offer them a chance to be among the elite and get a huge payday every season...from a financial standpoint, they’d be foolish not to take it.

ElPistolero wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

I disagree. Wimbledon FC were a club in south London. Somehow they ended up becoming MK Dons, in a town (city ?) 60 miles away
Arsenal was originally a football club for people at the Royal Arsenal munition factory in Woolwich, south east London (hence the club's name and cannon logo). Now they are in north London and apart from the logo have little or no link to the area where they used to be based

Football clubs are brands. The typical kid who lives in Indonesia and supports Liverpool FC has most likely never been to the UK
Football has become just a way for people to exhibit tribalism in a legal and publicly respectable way without having to go to the trouble of actually killing people from the neighbouring tribe because they burnt you crops, stole your gold and ravaged your women

MK Dons. Third and fourth tier side.

Didn’t work out did it.

Woolich Arsenal moved in the 19th Century. Not really relevant for todays game.

Anyway, Chelsea are pulling out of ESL.

It’ll probably collapse. Maybe goodbye Real Madrid and Barcelona. Not sure they can survive their billion Euro plus debts.

https://www.sportbible.com/football/fai ... n-20210128

Football clubs are not brands. They are identities.

They are not static identities - they can be moulded to fit anyone.

Don’t need to be a scouser to be an LFC or EFC fan.

Don’t have to be mancunian to be an MUFC or MCFC fan.

These teams won’t lose their identity - at the most they may lose some hardcore local fans.

You really don’t know much about English football do you?

Yes of course you can support a club not from your area.

But there has never been an instance in English football whereby a club has had its identity moulded. We had MK Dons and that proved to be a disaster. I think subsequent FA rules now prevent moving clubs as a response to the Wimbledon issue (ironically the phoneix Wimbledon club is better than MK Dons).

If you can let me know though where a club in England has been moulded into a new identity, I’d be interested to know.