Just a thought?

[iman]

With all this talk about Bayern leaving Bundesleaga and G-14 always hinting at breaking away, I was wondering what Pan-Euro league would look like if they ever did create one.. Here's my pitch:
Take the teams from CL 2nd group phase and add 4 teams (say liverpool, bayern, porto, and celtic as ex.). You would have a 20 team league like epl with bottom three being dropped. 3 promoted teams would be CL and Uefa cup winners and either the winner of a 3rd place teams between two runner's-up or winner of a third cup like cup winners cup. tell me what you think?

[AFCA]

I think people should stop with this Euroleague fantasy. Ain't gonna happen.

[iman]

just humor me man. Say it did hypothetically happen, wouldn't that be a good format for it?

[Excape Goat]

They had a similiar thread at Beautiful Game. The people did not really like the idea. I thought it is a good fantasy topic.

[iman]

I'm sorry for offending your high and mighty sensabilities AFCA with my stupid question. I know I may be an ignorant American who knows nothing of the game but if you look at the status quo of football, it needs some sort of change. What's wrong with a european super league? I have been only closely following football since the early 90's but all I have been seeing is that there is a definate imbalance of talent between the top 3 or four teams of national leagues and the rest of the clubs. Atleast with a change you wouldn't have the real's, the barca's, man u's, milan's and bayerns dominating all trophies. With todays system you ensure that a select number of teams have an unfair advantage against the smaller clubs. The same teams dominate their leagues, get all the European spots and get the money that results ensuring them the finances to stay on top. If you seperated the top teams you would give the other teams a legitimate shot at winning their league or cup. This seems to be a more viable options than to try to reallocate wealth to the smaller clubs in order to allow them to compete. Sure it might be better for Ajax to compete against the other dutch clubs to make them appear stronger than they are (And I am not calling Ajax a weak team by any means) but can you honestly say that the teams Ajax plays are in their same league talent-wise?
If you think a super league is a stupid idea, what do you suggest be done to ensure all teams an equal shot?

[IASocFan]

I think the top 20-30 teams want a Euro league (with them included). It's the next 100-200 teams in Europe that will lose the fan base and TV coverage that the new league would generate.

[Clan]

Originally posted by iman
I'm sorry for offending your high and mighty sensabilities AFCA with my stupid question. I know I may be an ignorant American who knows nothing of the game but if you look at the status quo of football, it needs some sort of change. What's wrong with a european super league? I have been only closely following football since the early 90's but all I have been seeing is that there is a definate imbalance of talent between the top 3 or four teams of national leagues and the rest of the clubs. Atleast with a change you wouldn't have the real's, the barca's, man u's, milan's and bayerns dominating all trophies. With todays system you ensure that a select number of teams have an unfair advantage against the smaller clubs. The same teams dominate their leagues, get all the European spots and get the money that results ensuring them the finances to stay on top. If you seperated the top teams you would give the other teams a legitimate shot at winning their league or cup. This seems to be a more viable options than to try to reallocate wealth to the smaller clubs in order to allow them to compete. Sure it might be better for Ajax to compete against the other dutch clubs to make them appear stronger than they are (And I am not calling Ajax a weak team by any means) but can you honestly say that the teams Ajax plays are in their same league talent-wise?
If you think a super league is a stupid idea, what do you suggest be done to ensure all teams an equal shot?

AFCA is right lad.
Your (or anybodys) system of a "superleague" would infact take it to even further levels of disparity.
What needs to be done is cut down on the amount of teams in the European Cup--or Champions league as it is called today.Real champions only allowed in with perhaps second placed teams from countries with country co-effieients of a certain number.No drop down to the UEFA Cup allowed.

Take at least half of the money earmarked for the CL and split it between the following.

Re-introduction of the Cup Winners Cup as a straight knock out comp.

Initial mini-league for the UEFA Cup as well.

The only way that change will ever come about is if the amount of slots for the major teams in the CL is lessened as the fear of losing out on a big pay day in Europe will by itself spur them on to make significant changes in the financial rewards of advancing to the later stages of the other European comps.
As it stands now why should they?
Next year will see a reduction in the amount of GAMES they will play, however, the same AMOUNT of TEAMS will still qualify.You can bet your ass that all of the big teams would agree to increasing the revenue flowing to the UEFA cup if they realised that they stood just as much a chance of being in that than the CL.

[iman]

the problem I see with that is that is regressive. By that I mean you are asking the big clubs to go back on the changes that have allowed them to achieve their lofty position. Look at the problems the DFL has had just getting an admission of wrong doing from bayern. I find it hard that the g-14 will accept that willingly.
Is it good to have leagues decided in Feb like in germany, holland, scotland, england(maybe not this year but usually), etc? How can the fact that the old firm has won every single spl title for nearly twenty be good for the game or the spl?
I also don't buy the fact that this will cause the smaller clubs to lose fans. The only fans that will be lost are those that are fans of the clubs that are leaving in the first place. If your a fulham fan it is because you like fulham football not because your teams plays man u twice a season. Wouldn't you be happier if your team actually stood a chance of winning the epl or getting a place in europe with out the barrier of those same top clubs that always end at the top? My point is that people will not change alligances because the the teams their clubs play.
Besides with the bigger clubs out you wouldn't have problems like the bayern-kirch affair and the italian-tv right mess because the big egos will be gone battling each other for the money instead of screwing the minnows.
The only audience I see smaller clubs (and by that I mean the other clubs in the top leagues) losing is the casual fan who only want to see the stars. I have two points on this; first will you actually miss them? second uefa can always funnel money back into their leagues with their cut of the profits (which I assume will be great indeed).
sorry for the rant but I just can't see how it is possible to maintain the traditional alligances and formats when the world of soccer has changed so much. I know I lack the knowledge of having the actual living breathing history around me as I write this but coming froma objective outside viewpoint I don't see how the system can survive. I think that the point will be reached someday that the big boys will just get feed up with they see as needless regulation on only them, give up on uefa and take their ball home with them.

[Bauser]

Iman, every country in Europe is very determined to have its own national championship. By pulling out the best teams you devalue the national championship. You devalue the most important competition in the sport. You gamble with the roots of the game. It may not seem important to overseas people who turn on their TVs to see the Man Uniteds and Real Madrids, but to local people it matters a great deal.

[iman]

understood, but your still left with the problem of 3 top teams per country dominating all the trophies, money, and players.

[minorthreat]

Originally posted by iman
understood, but your still left with the problem of 3 top teams per country dominating all the trophies, money, and players. Right, because Real Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, and Depor are light years past the rest of Spa.... eh? Real Sociedad? Who are they? Oh. Well, the Rest of Italy can't hope to compete with the Milan teams and Juven...Chie-what? Oh. At least the rest of England can't keep up with Arsenal, Manchester United, and Liver...Everton? Who are they?

[Matt Clark]

Iman - you have to forgive the slightly exasperated tone of some of the replies you have got. These threads pop up with monotonous regularity and are always the brain-child of someone who, like yourself, has no direct exposure to the meaning, value and relevance of football in Europe - and European football - to the football fans of Europe.

That's not a criticism of you by the way, that's just a characterisation based on past experience. Above and beyond that, your comments are fair and your questions reasonable.

By way of an answer, I would first of all say that the composition of a SuperLeague, were such a thing ever likely to come to pass, would not be conducted as you see it. It would not be a case of taking the top X number of teams and adding a couple to get a nice round number.

The reason the G-14 exists (now with 17 members ... ) is because the executives of the fourteen most valuable brands in European football became convinced that the format of European football was not sufficiently profitable in relation to the value of their brands. Why do you think the "Champions League" exists in it's current format? UEFA tried to appease those convictions by artificually inflating the size and relevance of their premier competition.

But back to brands - fact is, membership of any SuperLeague has nothing to do with how good you are, it's about how big you are. Thus, for instance, Celtic and Ajax are in, Lazio, Valencia, Deportivo La Coruna are not. Despote the latter arguably being more significant entities at the moment than the former two (being, as they are, from Serie A and La Liga, as opposed to the SPL and Eeredivisie).

So first of all you have to divest yourself of any notion that a "progression" (for want of a less sick word) toward a SuperLeague would factor in merit or include any altruistic, inclusive imperatives.

Secondly, and by extension to the above, you have to remember that the proposal for a SuperLeague, as advanced by G-14 in 1998, made no provision for promotion or relegation. If you're in, you're in, if you're out, you're out. Make your own conclusions about the significance this has for

a) value and
b) competitive fairness.

Thirdly, and this just to cut an increasingly lenghty post short, the naked truth of the matter is that if a SuperLeague was ever going to be feasible, they would already have done it. Fact is, the numbers never added up - now that football's bubble has resonately burst, it never will.

To answer your final point briefly, the key to maintaining what has, through history and tradition, become the most relevant, inherantly valuable part of European football is to accept that sense, perspective and good business practice have to lead the way for football - not ever more desperate, artificial schemes by the "brand leaders" to "leverage" their "product". Football fell on it's arse post-2001 expressely because the Kirch and ITV Digital-type deals were fanciful economics at their worst. Football believed it's own hype - and the markets, as they always do, cruelly awoke them from the misguided reverie of their own worth.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by iman

Is it good to have leagues decided in Feb like in germany, holland, scotland, england(maybe not this year but usually), etc? How can the fact that the old firm has won every single spl title for nearly twenty be good for the game or the spl?

Very few leagues are decided in february. It may be clear that only two or three clubs are in contention for the title by that time, but unlike in American sports, a league is seen as a competition in its entirety, not just a battle for the championship.

Scotland is something of a strange case, as I don't think there's any other league where the top two are so vastly better supported than the other sides.


Wouldn't you be happier if your team actually stood a chance of winning the epl or getting a place in europe with out the barrier of those same top clubs that always end at the top?

Without the top clubs what would winning the epl actually mean? It certainly wouldn't mean being national champions any more.

European football is a bonus, but ultimately not that important (prestige wise). Nobody is suggesting that Arsenal sack Wenger for Arsenal's lack of impact in the champions league over the years. Come 4th a couple of years in row, but do the same in Europe, and they'll be calling for a change.

The thing is though, there are currently 32 champions league group slots up for grabs each year. With a euroleague, rather than making way for more teams to qualify, you'd actually have these 20 (or so) euro superleague clubs guaranteed those spots, leaving only 12 spots to fight for. It wouldn't make it easier to qualify at all.


The only audience I see smaller clubs (and by that I mean the other clubs in the top leagues) losing is the casual fan who only want to see the stars. I have two points on this; first will you actually miss them?
yes


second uefa can always funnel money back into their leagues with their cut of the profits (which I assume will be great indeed).

they could do, but I can't see it happening. The game's governing bodies are hardly well known for their benevolence, except when there are votes to be won.

[Matt Clark]

second uefa can always funnel money back into their leagues with their cut of the profits (which I assume will be great indeed).


they could do, but I can't see it happening. The game's governing bodies are hardly well known for their benevolence, except when there are votes to be won.


Besides, as has been mentioned, revenue sharing runs diametrically opposite to the core motivation for having a SuperLeague. And the establishment of such a leage would signify the sort cataclysmic collapse in UEFA's power that they would by definition not have the authority to enforce revenue sharing from a break-away league.

Any way up, it's bad for football.