OK, they are releasing the Champions League recipe on international football. Absurd proposal. But it'll surely lead to loads of money.
Exactly. It will help to widen the financial gap and development gap further. And it will lead to sclerosis of the game. Oligopoly is normally not beneficial for a vibrant 'business'.
The trade-off for extra revenue seems to be abandoning experiments in friendlies (cost of losing a friendly has increased) and closing off UEFA even more as friendlies were one of the few occasions to play against non-UEFA teams. Maybe they could still 'invite' non-UEFA teams into the League of Nations.
= Argentina and Brazil (only!). Platini wanted european championships with Argentina and Brazil right? Psssst....
Yea he did ... still needs more visibility ahead of the elections. Why not the likes of Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Japan, S.Korea, Ghana, Nigeria, CIV, Mexico, USA, ...?
For the proposed upper-tier of 12-16 nations? Don't think that's realistic. And for the proposed lower tiers (with low exposure) maybe it will not be very interesting. Would it be for Ireland, Switzerland etc. particularly interesting to invite South Korea in their tier? By the way, it will also increase the chance that super-talents from lower tier nations switch nationality... for their career perspective. As also happens in sports like basketball, ice hockey, volleyball which are organized in a similar way.... switching to nations playing in a higher division, and playing world championship level.
You'd have to fit them into one of the tiers ... even if it means UEFA teams dropping out of the top tier (e.g. to accomodate Brazil, Argentina, etc.) ... still teams will be better prepared for the WC and it promotes football on a global scale. Unsure what the effect will be on young top talents from lower tiers but you could be proven right. Guessing NTs will be reluctant to use friendlies as a risk-free way to try them out and I'm not a fan of that happening. On a positive note ... friendlies might get more real without a silly amount of subs.
The question is also: 'which teams in particular?'. Not certain whether it promotes football across the globe in particular... Btw, it can also turn out to be a protectionist measure... so that rising powers (or potential powers like China) are endlessly stuck into the swamps of the unadorned lower tiers. But surely there would a interest for recurring Spain-Italy games on a yearly basis... like the Champions League.
Without a shadow of a doubt profit is the main objective ... Holland v. Germany will draw a much larger crowd than when these NTs face minnows. Ideally lower tier NTs can win more often/a trophy/play-off berth and have incentives to develop into a top tier NT ... attracting more interest and support along the way. E.g. football wouldn't be promoted in China if we close off friendlies to them ... instead if they end up in a group of NTs that are of similar strength, they could go on to top the group ... it's more interesting than knowing in advance that other NTs are too strong ... people aren't going to buy into a sport, if their team always loses. The reality might differ though ... I don't think that e.g. Luxembourg will be a football superpower in the forseeable future but it might generate more interest and support if they win a group of mini-states.
Football is maybe different but other sports working with clear tiers show that it doesn't work that way. Relegation to a lower tier often goes along with less public interest, television interest, sponsor interest, departure of staff etc. Winning silverware at a tier nobody cares for doesn't naturally attract support. Depends on how it will be worked out but a tier-system is definitely prone to work as a 'swamp', esp. for rising powers or potential great powers. Cf. club teams playing in the third division of league football (best chance to climb up is a sugar daddy... which becomes prohibited by 'Financial Foul Play').
Some lessons from club football can be applied to NTs ... still less public interest, television interest, sponsor interest, departure of staff etc. isn't uncommon in the current format ... visit LUX and make a few friends ... they'll tell you that almost nobody in Lululand is interested in football ... cycling = big deal in LUX ... I can imagine that this LoN concept will improve the current situation. I do agree that barriers between tiers shouldn't be too restrictive ... in earlier posts I wrote that I'm a proponent of a big churn.
I think we can at least agree on this. This proposal hasn't been made with the objective to foster development around Europe/the globe. It is done to increase television and sponsorship revenues, which will logically flow to the 'big brands' mostly (=England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain + Argentina, Brazil; the UEFA will devise something to prevent relegation by these cash cows, surely). Just as with the UCL. It'll probably (further) lead to sclerosis. A side effect of establishing a top tier is that talented players of these nations gain valuable experience quicker, they mature quicker and become better; they'll be 'better prepared' like you said. Once again, just like the Champions League. So there is also a performance side to this proposal. I think we'll see a gap akin to the Premier League <-> Championship 'gulf'. Regarding Luxembourg: that's an odd case. Of all West European nations, it ranks among the bottom with the least interest from the crowd. Like I said (I'm not repeating myself); with club football in mind and experience of other sports, I highly doubt whether the prospect of becoming champion at a lower tier fosters interest. Probably not. But no problem to have a different judgement or estimation... I respect that.
No thanks. This is purely for UEFA. I like the idea. Growing really tired of worthless friendly matches.
@Blondo I've heard 'my' chairman of the Football Association now (KNVB), and he has some reservations from a financial and sports reason. Confirms my thoughts
Speaking selfishly as an American fan, I am worried. This competition sounds like it will minimize the opportunity the United States has to schedule friendlies against European sides.
We already have EUROs, qualifiers, ... purely for UEFA. Friendlies are (were after 2018) one of only a handful of opportunities to play against opponents from another confederation ... I'd watch ties like Brazil v Germany, Argentina v Italy, etc. Also when teams in other confeds can experiment with new tactics, budding talents, etc. without the added risk of a LoN format ... unsure who will get the better deal.
That's naive For a country like Belgium who have a talented crop once in a while this will create an extra hurdle and backlog; it'll be difficult to battle against advantages in experience and facilities. Anyway... This proposal is for coddling the big brands, no doubt.
We've been around since the beginning and have plenty of experience when it comes to back channels and backroom deals ... even if results on the pitch are poor, we'll make up for it in other ways ... do I need to remind you that the Dutch voice at ExCo has a distinct Flemish accent. Kidding/subdued rivalry aside ... I feel that the sports reasons for a LoN aren't convincing.
I like the idea that friendly matches will matter. Our players(Bosnia-Herzegovina) treat friendly matches like mini vacations and put minimal effort into them, very unprofessional.
You shouldn't be. UEFA announced that top tier of this proposed league should consist of 12 teams in 4 groups of 3 teams - each matchday (6) there are 4 top European teams free to play friendlies. Of course, it would be ridiculous if UEFA force them to play eachother on those off days as they did with France for 2016 Euro Qualifiers. I am upset with this competition announcement. Only reason (I think that many people share my opinion) is generating money for UEFA as they don't get single € for friendlies, no matter how attractive those are. God forbid Platini to succeed Blatter.
UEFA Nations League: all you need to know Published: Thursday 27 March 2014, 13.15CETWhat is it? How will it work? What is it trying to achieve and why does UEFA believe that it will improve the quality and standing of national team football? Find out here. http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2079553.html You have to read these things five or ten times to translate "press-release-ease" into a proper Earth language, but here is what I see: The 54 teams are divided into four "groups" of 12-14 teams. (A previous release stated Group A as being the top 12-14 teams; group D being the lowest teams.) Each group is divided into four "pools" of 3-4 teams. Play the teams in your pool home-and-away, for six matchdays. (Teams will play four or six games.) These are played on the Sept-Oct-Nov of an even-numbered year. Four pool winners of Group A will play a final-four-style playoff (single-elimination). (I had thought that they also would qualify for the Euro's, but there is nothing in the press rel saying this.) In Groups B, C, D, the four pool winners are promoted. In Groups A, B, C, the four last-place teams are relegated. Teams then play a standard six-team, ten-matchday qualifying schedule. This is played in the ten matchdays of the off-numbered year. This would qualify 20 teams for the upcoming Euro's. Next, there is a weird line in the press rel: "Four teams within each group, who have not already qualified for the finals, will qualify for play-offs in March 2020 with one team from each group joining the 20 teams who had qualified via the European Qualifiers." That seems to mean, that the March matchdays will have four four-team single-elimination tournaments, qualifying the last four teams for the Euro's. (To fit in the international calendar, the Group A "championship" tournament would also be played at this time.) And, yes, this seems to imply that one team from Group D would qualify for the Euro's: "Lower-tier nations - the bottom 16 in rankings - are now guaranteed one of the 24 qualifying slots for UEFA EURO."
I'm guessing that NTs will be divided into 4 'large tiers' (= groups/divisions) according to the UEFA national team coefficient rankings generated by calculating: 2014 World Cup (Qs and final tournament) - 20% of total weighting EURO 2016 (Qs and final tournament) - 40% of total weighting 2018 World Cup (Qs) - 40% of total weighting Although the format hasn't been finalized yet ... most likely the top 12 - 14 NTs will end up in the premier tier ... the likes of Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Spain, England and Switzerland sailed through the Brazil2014 qualifiers undefeated and seem to have a head start but there are still many matches before the final ranking ... so the coefficient rankings will be hugely important once (after the 2018 WC Q play-offs) and from that day onwards it's about promotion/relegation?