Here is vifvaf's version of football. You have to live within one mile of the stadium to get in. Outside of one mile no way. Television. No way. Don't want to grow the game (US, Asia) don't need those revenue streams. Wants to drink coffee from a plastic cup that burns your hand.
Players staying in their own country would help smaller countries. Özil staying in Germany, yeah, networks would pay for that because it's Germany. The league is already strong. Something like that would be great for smaller countries. Think how strong the Belgian league could be if Fellani, Hazard, Kompany, etc. were still playing at home? Such a restriction, though, would pretty much violate all EU labor laws.
The football wouldn't be as good as it is now either. TV wouldn't be as interested. Global markets would be less interested as well.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
I have not said they have to stay local. I said i is possible to be a top european top club with local players. It has been done before and will be done again. A that local players are appreciated by the clubs fans and the community around them.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
Buhuu. Vifvaf doesn`t follow the stream and i do not feel included. haha. You seem to run out of arguments when you start with comments like this Schapes. TV sure. But. games should not be played when telvision want to , but when people want to go to the matches. Sure nothing bad with growth. But not not at the expense of lokals. And i want to be able to drink a beer during the match and not only bad coffee or warm soda. I want terraces with safe standing and singing fans. I want for the fans voice to be heard. I want affordable tickets for some and expencive vip tickets for others and so on.
Im not talking of pure local teams. I only used Bilbao as an example that it can be done with only locals. But a greater use of local players i something i want and work for.
Maybe the marked interest in Asia or US would decrease . But i think the opposit would happen in Europe. Something that might be a healthy thing if you look at it from an other point of view.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
Hmm, "interesting" stats. A bit of digging about (and only a bit as a dodgy internet connection/modem is limiting the time I can do anything) suggests this study was a collaboration between the premier league and the "visitbritain" tourist promotion site. In other words, one company that wants to showcase how popular Britain is for tourism and another trying to say how popular their product is to tourists, have come up with numbers showing the product is tremendously popular among tourists, and would be a good thing the visit the country to do. Call me an old cynic if you will, but there's more than a little scope for "massaging of the figures" in that scenario. If you take the Old Trafford example, if we assume they played around 25 home games then with 52000 season ticket holders and 3000 away fans at their games, it would mean perhaps nearly one individual ticket in four sold to non-STHs went to an overseas tourist. I saw one Irish paper show more than a little surprise that Celtic Park, a natural destination for thousands of Irish fans, didn't even feature in the Top 10. Celtic, obviously, aren't in the premier league.
It's a bad example because they are able to draw players from a whole region, who also prefer to play for a club from that region. They have several million to choose from who'd also crucially prefer to play for a Basque club. Other clubs don't have that option.
The 100 Most Controversial Football Club Owners Of All-Time: No.99 – Stan Flashman (Barnet) http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=18640
Let's take Chelsea. If they took all the players from within a 25 mile radius of Stamford Bridge - no way are they in the Champions League final!
What you call "local patriotism," many call "sectarianism." Historically, this type of thing has had a pretty negative effect on soccer. For example, Rangers and Celtic in Scotland refused, for most of their history, to hire players who were Catholic or Protestant, respectively. When the teams started recruiting players of the "wrong" religion, fans threatened the players and coaches. The ugly tribalism and sectarianism that exists in the history of many European clubs is not something to be proud of.
Because they don't have the same "regional separatism" that exist in the Basque region, meaning players want to play for a club in the region rather than the biggest clubs in the country. They find it hard enough to keep their best players at youth level, let alone when they become established first team players. Clubs would love to fill their teams with players who've come up through the youth ranks rather than having to pay transfer fees, but they typically have to take the pragmatic view that playing only local players would see them struggle - either because the local players coming through their youth system aren't good enough, or they can't attract all the best local players to their club. Often both. As creditible as it would seem to pack the team with local players, few fans are going to respond well to the policy if it sees their team struggle.
Because they don't have the same "regional separatism" that exist in the Basque region, meaning players want to play for a club in the region rather than the biggest clubs in the country. They find it hard enough to keep their best players at youth level, let alone when they become established first team players. Clubs would love to fill their teams with players who've come up through the youth ranks rather than having to pay transfer fees, but they typically have to take the pragmatic view that playing only local players would see them struggle - either because the local players coming through their youth system aren't good enough, or they can't attract all the best local players to their club. Often both. As creditible as it would seem to pack the team with local players, few fans are going to respond well to the policy if it sees their team struggle.