I assume by APL you mean Albania, right? Over time, the prestigue of playing in the ESL would nullify those reactions. I won't be too worried about it. And if anything, the APL would realize having one of their clubs in the ESL is prestigious enough to warrant a "welcome back" reception for a fine job representing their football.
"prestige" is not a commodity. Does not replace tickets sold, merchandising, lost TV revenues. Not even in the Albanian league. Much more so in the premiership.
You're right about that. But the thing is: if you want to have an elite competition and play in your national league at the same time, an ESL is redundant as the UCL covers that.
I don't know why fans bother trotting this out again and again. It will never happen. Period. Some of the naysayers contend though that a superleague would be the death of the sport. I say no to that too. It would be the death of most of the superclubs. What MAKES these teams superclubs is their relative dominance in their leagues. So if you take these teams and make 3/4 of them also-rans in a super-league, they are no longer a superclub. Hell, some of them would actually become perennial doormats. And over time, that would erode most of their luster. It would only benefit the handful at the top, that would managed to remain dominant amongst the dominant. Nearly no club really wants this. The big European powers just like using the threat of it to get what they want out of UEFA and/or FIFA.
It would be bad to see European Superleague, because national leagues would have weaker quality, similar thing we can see in basketball with some regional leagues, at the end those best clubs play several matches in their national leagues, so that they can decide about league and cup. Champions League is allready close to Superleague. Europa League should reduce the number of participants maybe, because group stages are not so interesting, I think that best clubs don't like to play Europa League anymore (Napoli, Udinese, Liverpool, Atletico Madrid, Ajax, Marseille, Athletic Bilbao). Chelsea played 1-1 at home against Sparta Prague. Further stages won't be interesting without these clubs. We could lose Tottenham or Inter soon.
Once I was completely against a European Super League, but I'm unsure now. Perhaps it may actually benefit the sport? I think most people will agree that there is definitely a problem in European football at the moment, especially in England, with regards domestic leagues becoming more and more predictable, less competitive and being dominated by one or two super-clubs. UEFA have clearly missed a trick with regards FFP, as all that will do is ensure that the current hierarchy cannot be challenged forever more. Now I think that if the biggest clubs from across the continent were to form a Super League (and weren't allowed to compete in their domestic leagues), then fans would have more chance of repairing the sport, seeing more enjoyable and competitive leagues, and even a reduction in ticket prices.
Initially I think it would, yes. Long-term though, realistically, it's probably the only way to repair some of the problems in domestic football. Let's face it, are Barcelona and Real Madrid really going to agree to a fairer distribution of television revenue within Spanish football? Same goes for the other super-powers throughout Europe. They don't care that between them they are turning each domestic league into a Scottish SPL.
Were you around in the late 1970's through to 1990 when Liverpool just about won the league every damn year!! Things were just as predictable then, things will change over time, they always do.
I don't know how you can say that. In the 1970s Nottingham Forest were promoted, League Champions and European Champions in successive seasons. That could never happen nowadays. It isn't possible. Also, look at the variety in the amount of teams who were capable of finishing 2nd, 3rd, and 4th during the 1970s & 1980s. Far more variety than nowadays. Clubs like Nottingham Forest, Malmo, Aston Villa, Red Star, Steaua Bucharest, Dundee United, Aberdeen, IFK Gothenburg etc reaching, and in some cases winning European cup competition finals? That'll never happen again, it'll be the same select few super-clubs monopolising the trophies and best players for the foreseeable future.
What would the Premiership look like without, say, Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal, etc? What would happen with the TV revenues of the clubs still in Premiership? Heck, for most of the other clubs, the yearly visits of Manchester United to their grounds may be the best draw through the turnstyles. Do we want them to lose that?
I agree. Initially, the Premier League would be weaker without the likes of those clubs. Overseas fans of of English clubs (99.9% of which support the likes of MUFC, AFC, CFC, LFC) would turn their interest away from the PL and towards a European Super League. TV companies would be less inclined to want to pay huge amount of money for TV coverage, and the other teams wouldn't be as strong (although would have more chance of actually winning the league they play in. In my opinion, in order to repair football this has to happen though. There isno way issues like the competitive balance of domestic leagues, lack of competitiveness, and extortionate ticket prices can be rectified otherwise. It just won't happen. Just like Rangers and Celtic in Scotland only care about themselves and not the well-being of other clubs or supporters, the above mentioned clubs along with the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich etc are the same. I'm not in favour of a Super League, I personally wouldn't watch a minute of it in a stadium or on TV, but I realise that it is what is needed to save the sport.
In terms of the bold stuff, this has been happening for decades. It wasn't considered "broken" before, why would it be now? The sport itself is not in need of "saving". In any case, how would this Superleague "save" anything? In fact, what makes you think that teams who have thrived in non-parity-driven situations would bother implementing rules that address " lack of competitiveness, and extortionate ticket prices"? Being effectively the league and marketing itself worldwide, what about past behaviour makes you think this wouldn't drive ticket prices up? I've said it many times and I'll say it again: all those 'elite' clubs you mention have the followings they do for the most part by being winning teams. The day this kind of competiton arrives, they risk kissing that goodbye, particularly with the newer global fanbase who are typically less invested in following one team for life, regardless of performance. My belief is that a superleague, rather than being inevitable, is more of a hefty bargaining chip or potential alternative that the European elite can resort to when negotiating with teh governing bodies. With that in mind, they already get what they want out of the UCL while also enjoying the financial security of being a dominant force in their lucrative domestic leagues. Furthermore, such a move would diminish the relevance of domestic clubs as I sincerely doubt that pro/rel would be implemented. Real Madrid are one of the biggest culprits when it comes to declaring that they make the UCL what it is and that they should be included as frequently as possible. They aren't likely to be willing to go to all this trouble to set up a division that they can technically get dumped out of. With that in mind, domestic football would become little more than a set of minor leagues and farming territories, if it survived at all. The bottom line is that any ESL would be the epitome of teams that only care about themselves. It wouldn't fix anything in my view and in many ways would damage the sport - perhaps even fatally. Hell, who wants to watch a lower-table ESL clash between PSG and FC Porto anyway?
It's obviously become more-unbalanced though, hasn't it? Where once it was difficult for certain clubs to win the league, or finish in the top four, now it is impossible. Many supporters were prepared to accept that it was possible, but may take ten years, nowadays those same supporters have realised that it won't happen within theirs (or their children's) lifetime. The Super League itself wouldn't save anything. But the fans would stand a greater chance if they didn't have to content with the marketing men, accountants, and lawyers of Europe's super-rich elite. Ticket prices would increase, the same as everyday prices increase, taxes increase, and (if you're lucky) wages also increase. That said, without the millions of overseas supporters flooding the league with money through TV revenue and merchandising a greater % of clubs' money would come through paying supporters, therefore clubs couldn't price them out. I agree with all of that. A club who finish within the 'top four' in England who can only finish tenth in a ESL would struggle to retain overseas support, and shrink in size. None of that is my problem though.
Has it though? La Liga has always had years at a time when it's been Barca/Real Madrid. Italy hasn't seen much change in contenders from the '80s and and neither has Germany. France is as cyclical as always. Porto and Scotland have been so closed for so long that aside from the bankruptcy of Rangers (who were still second in the league when they folded) an increase in dominance is untracable. If anything, when you look around at places like Holland and Turkey, where it was a complete closed-shop for the top three, we're seeing other teams getting in on the hunt. The only clear example for what you're saying is the English league. After the advent of the EPL, England became increasingly unbalanced after years of various teams mixing it up with the big guns and the big guns themselves being somewhat cyclical.
A common misconception, based on perceptions brought about by the following: 1) In the European Cup era only Champions and the EC holders qualified 2) Every round was a straight KO Those factors created an illusion of European football leagues being closer in quality because the limited number of truly elite clubs meant a greater variety of smaller clubs reaching later stages, while the straight KO format throughout meant that occasional shocks had a greater impact on the field overall. For example, the year that Steaua Bucharest won the competition, they got pretty good draws up to the semi against Anderlecht, while Barcelona in the final was their one game against a real power. They won that game on penalties. However, the competition was never truly balanced. Prior to the advent of the Champions League format, there were eight spells where a team won the tournament at least twice in a row. Among those, three teams won the cup more than twice in a row, with Real Madrid winning it five consecutive times. That accounts for 21 titles in 36 years. If you take which leagues contributed champions, it looks even worse. The first 11 editions saw Spain win six, Italy win three and Portugal win two. Then from '77 to '84, England won all but one and of course, had a finalist in the tragic '85 final. Conversely, the Champions League has never had a repeat winner or even back to back winners from the same league.
Its always been the case, things do and will change in time, there has ALWAYS been have and have nots in the game and I am afraid my friend that will always be the case.
You're focussing on England, where the climate changed after the EPL was established. The prize money and TV revenue for clubs in the top flight is far more than in the division below. Such funds were distributed more evenly in the football league. In any case, England was still the exception rather than the rule. As for your list of European winners they were also exceptions rather than rules (indeed, Red Star and Steaua were about the only teams of their ilk to pull that off in the Champions League). It's not that football was massively more fair in those days, it's that the competition format and standard of team was slightly more conducive to an underdog going all the way. Ironically, it was also more conducive to being thoroughly dominated by teams and leagues. Even the Europa League is currently more open than the UEFA Cup was in it's prime. Between 1988 and 1999, it was won by 7 times by Italian teams, 3 by German and once by a Dutch side. In fact, in the last decade we've actually seen the trophy move between representative of four different leagues (three of which had not had a winner previously). In the entire history of the competition before that, representatives of only six leagues had won it. EDIT: Actually, looking at the UEFA Cup history and that of the UCL since it started inviting multiple entrants from stronger leagues shows that little has actually changed. The UEFA Cup in the era of the "Champions Only" European Cup had a similar situation with top leagues dominating that the UCL currently has. The biggest difference is that the UCL has even stronger teams involved.
I agree that in the past this has been the case. That a certain club will enjoy a period of success, then be replaced by another club. This is the past though, not the future. The future is about a handful of super-clubs wanting to cement their place at the top table by denying other clubs the privileges that they enjoy. Once FFP comes into European football, it will kill competition stone dead. A mid-table club will remain mid-table forever. A smaller club will remain small. The bigger clubs have even pressured UEFA to bend the rules in order to protect themselves and eliminate competition. And worse, in the future we're going to be asked to pay £40, £50, £60+ for this predictable shite. Why bother, when supporters will know their clubs fate for the next fifty years based on their current situation and FFP stopping them from improving it?
I disagree that the previous format of European competition, or domestic leagues was as predictable prior to 1992 as it has been since then. I understand that the format was more suited to underdogs achieving success prior to UEFA messing the format up, but still, the fact remains that nowadays European competiton is pretty boring unless you support one of a handful of clubs, and is contrived it's almost UEFA's answer to American-style wrestling. I agree that some smaller European leagues tended to be dominated by one, two or three clubs, but England has always had much more variety amongst the teams capable of winning it or finishing in the top three or four positions than there is nowadays, and the monopoly the bigger clubs have nowadays is mainly down to money.
To be honest with you I really cant see this being the case at all, at the end of the day in football (as in life) there has always been and will always be have and have not's. Of course if you are rich and successful its FAR FAR easier to stay rich and successful but it is never inevitable, dont be suprised if Manchester United are not winning every other Premiership title in 20 years time because there is a high level of competition from more than one other source that is constantly exerting pressure on them, things may only change slowly but things do and will change (occasionally at a rate of knots too, look at how suddenly Manchester City have come on the scene, it could have so easily been any other club).
Hope you're right, but Manchester City improved as a result of investment, and it's this kind of investment which the established elite want banned under FFP.
At some point in history ALL elite clubs improved as a result of investment, it is only natural that things will continue along the same vein.