http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...z-reveals-European-Super-League-ambition.html This isn't just looney-rambling from Real Madrid's president. It's an actual threat to make a break-away league. This has been talked about for years, or even decades, everywhere from the top clubs' boardrooms to pubs to the internet. So it's no surprise to me. The league will most likely be more of a western European league than a balanced pan-European league because most "big" clubs are in western Europe. It will most likely resemble an American professional league, like the NFL, in that it will be a closed "elite" league where there is very little or no(most likely) promotion/relegation. So the question is do you support this super league or not?
They cant move from Uefa's competition.Why?Simple.The clubs are affiliate to a national body(the federation), and those federations are associates with Uefa.The biggest sport event:World Cup is made from nationals team.T Just trash from the big clubs.
Scap all the cups and play domestic league on weekends and in Europe in mid week. Works fine. UEFA wouldn't dare do shit.
Full article....http://footballfancast.com/blog/pre...per-league-be-such-a-bad-thing-football/15234 He really makes a good arguement for it.....
Allowing the smaller clubs to become what? Farm teams? That might be realistic for the real small clubs. But it will degrade the free market system that enables clubs like Man City to rise up and challenge the big clubs. That's what this "super league" is: A monopoly. The clubs themselves no longer have to compete. Oh yeah, ******** the national teams too. Maybe the top players will show up for the actual world cup after most of the actual players who competed in qualifiers got the team there. Assuming the world cup doesn't become a super league where only selected teams compete without having to qualify. The Americanization of football is coming into full circle.
I see no point in having a qualification. Why should Germany have to play San Marino? I don't think that serves a purpose. 95% of the time the teams that go through are the favorites anyway. Why spend millions and two years on something that's almost a given? These stupid fucking qualifiers are going to be the death of International Football. No one can get up for this shit any more. It's become uninteresting.
I agree the qualification needs to be tweeked. With the likes of San Marino, Andorra and other minnows having to play a qualification round simular to CONCACAF's island teams. That would reduce the number of qualifiying rounds while still keeping the integrity of competition in the sport. Nothing is a given. If it were, England would've qualified for Euro easily.
If you were a alien and had no idea what nationality the players were, who they played for and how much money they made, are you so sure you'd pick England over Croatia or Russia? I'm not so sure I would.
What does that have to do with anything? You said all the same teams go everytime and I proved otherwise to you.
Why are you guys talking about UEFA qualification? Open up a new thread if you wish to discuss that. Title it something like "Qualification is pointless and predictable even though we have no clue who will qualify in some of the groups." That way only stupid people need to read it. Yeah, he has some good points. But I'm not 100% convinced that domestic leagues wouldn't still be dominated by the same 2-3 clubs year after year. If you move the Big 4 out of England and into a Superleague, sure at first the EPL would be competitive. But maybe after 5 years you have Man City and Spurs dominating the same way Man United and Arsenal did.
Spurs? Pfft. They'd still finish middle of the table. That's what they are. It's not the competition, it's them.
That 95% of the time the two favorites in each group are the two teams that qualify. The only team that fuck it up are England. So why spend two years depriving us of what's important, the clubs, to watch predictable uninteresting piece of shit international football? It makes no sense. It only exist so the FA can make money and pretend it's an important part of the game.
If international football isn't interesting to you and you only care about the club games than that's your opinon. I believe qualifying is a very important part of the game as it's part of what I believe makes football great: A sport for everybody and not an elitist sport. And everybody no matter how small they are has the right to compete. I don't believe in entitlements in sport so I don't like the fact that there should be the same countries competing in the finals just because they are known to be a powerhouse and they have a lot of fans. I do believe, however, that the format should change with UEFA adopting a different qualifying format simular to what CONCACAF has. Minnows get to play each other for the right to enter a final group phase. That would reduce the number of teams competing so that there are less of those boring big team vs San Marino-type matches and less group stage games to give players more rest. All the time while keeping to the inclusive and competetive tradition of the game. I barely know any players that play for Croatia or Russia, but I knew they were good teams. Croatia has been a powehouse since they became an independent country. Russia has always been good, but overshadowed by bigger countries in football. And the fact that England got eliminated in qualifying, to me at least, is what makes the game interesting.
Croatia and Russia brought nothing to the competition. As much as I can't stand the English and think they're overrated and didn't deserve to make it, atleast with them it'd be interesting. Mostly because of their rediculous fans, the hype, and because it's always fun to see who'll be their scapegoat when they go out. When do we get a real qualification upset and does that make the actual competition more interesting? Let's say Italy, England and Spain don't qualify, that's better? I wouldn't even watch the shit.
it only happens now because of the extra champions league cash the top clubs get, which makes them perennial qualifiers, which gives them perennial gloryhunter fans, which all adds up to help them stay at the top. The "big 4" in England isn't the status quo. Even taking chelsea out of the mix, it's not as if Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool were always at the top. Those three might have all been in the top four for something like 10 of the last 12 years, but prior to that it had only happened once ever. Unless what's left went down the same stupid route of giving the top clubs ludicrous bonuses, there's no reason to suspect it'd happen again.
The key point is that the qualifying tournament's objective is to determine who deserves to go the the tourament. It's intention isn't to provide entertainment for tv viewers and win big tv contracts. That the favourites usually qualify is irrelevant. That just shows the qualifying is doing its job. There's perhaps an argument for some kind of pre-qualifying, whittling down the number of Andorras and San Marinos out there, but reducing the number of games too much risks the odd freak result having too much of an impact.
Well there's one reason: the fact that a team can't get promoted once they're in the Premier League. Promotion/relegation usually helps ensure parity except of course at the top of the top league and the bottom of the bottom league.
it didn't happen before the premier league/CL cash went into overdrive for the top sides. It happens in smaller countries where there are two or three clubs much bigger than the rest, but that was never the the case in England, or really in the other main countries. The Bundesliga is Germany shows that the game can be big and competitive without needing the top stars in the world or massive tv deals to get there. Even the Dutch league is thriving as its international influence declines. Of course predicting what would happen to any premier league (or any other league) stripped of its top sides is prone to error. I recall in the 90s that people were predicting that the rise in tv money would see the competition tightening up.
So what? So fucking what? I don't care. I've seen more of Russia then you probably have (I won't bet my life on it, but I'm confident I have), and they gave nothing to these Euros. England would have. I guarantee it. They'd have gicen this a flavour the Russians, as good as they were, would never have been close to. And the worst of all, you know I'm exactly right.
Russia makes it to the semis. You can "not care" all you want, but that's called bringing something to the tournament. You're just a plastic that only cares about step-overs and other stupid shit like that. If people like C. Ronaldo aren't around that you can jerk-off to, then you cry like a baby and complain that the tournament isn't entertaining enough for you. You can't appreciate a good football match. Just star-********ing.