Logically, if Real Madrid had a poor season in La Liga, they would also have a poor season in the SL. In truth, given the quality of team they would be facing each game in the SL, there's a decent chance they'd be dragged into a relegation battle. This also raises a potential plus of the SL idea vs the CL currently. It is quite possible for a team to win the CL despite having a poor domestic season. Consider that Liverpool have not won the English title (Premiership or Division One) in 20 years, yet have won one European Cup and came within touching distance of a second. To further dispute the overall quality of this teams squad, also consider that they qualified for their CL championship season by finishing fourth and the year they won it they finished fifth. While the SL would not make this impossible, the chances of a team that couldn't finish in the top three of the premiership becoming champions in a league where teams like AC Milan, Bayern Munich and Arsenal are the norm would be slim. Indeed, that team would likely be facing relegation. Actually, the CL proper is limited to 32 teams with the eventual champion being very highly likely to come from within the best 16. Also, you've just answered your own question. Why would people care about the CL? Well right now, the UEFA Cup entry process by definition contains none of the top 16 in Europe as theoretically they would all be playing in the last 16 of the CL. If anything, it simply selects those teams in a more haphazard way. So in answer to your question, winning the CL would be the second highest honour in European Club competition. It would also ensure that if Real Valladolid won it, that they would be entered into SL until such time as they fail to perform adequately. I guess some domestic criteria should be added, such as finishing at a specific level in your league (could be anything from maintaining a top 10 postion to simply remaining in the top flight), so as to ensure teams like Real Madrid can't just disregard one league to concentrate on another.
A bit arrogant here, aren't you? Why do you discount the qualifying stages? Dynamo Kyiv went through every qualifying stage to get to CL quarters in 1998 and CL semis in 1999. So it is not 32 teams, it's 76. Theretically only. Celtic may make it alternate reality in the space of two weeks, you know.
Soccernet has an article with Arsenal's Arsene Wenger predicting the Super League will happen, sadly. To his credit he doesn't seem to be endorsing rather than reasoning why forces will fight for it: "The way we are going now financially, even the money coming in from the Champions League, for some clubs who spend so much money, will not be enough anymore because the income is basically owned by UEFA and they distribute the money to the clubs." No, no, no, no, no, no! This is all predicated on the notion that the rich clubs deserve to entrench their status, as if others don't deserve the same opportunity no matter how far down the road. If the likes of Madrid and Milan are upset with having to spend so much in order to remain on top then they should decide which is more important to them: Sound fiscal operations or social perception. Does anyone truly think Madrid needed to spend as much in transfers as they did in order to compete for honors this season? Not hardly!! Chances are they could've held pat and still finished at least second in La Liga and made a decent run in the CL, arguably matching or exceeding the level of profit they'll see this season. Instead they overspend to draw attention (which they pretty much already had) and try to overtake Barca. Why should this practice be rewarded with placement in an exclusive club from which we all know it would almost be impossible to be removed? Answer: It shouldn't. If the idea is to reward success from the national leagues then any system should be based upon the UEFA/CL framework. So long as the predication for any league is to honor the "big" clubs it is based on greed and ego and should be left off the table. One man's rant, anyway.
Couldnot find an English language source, so use google trans for this Clubs and leagues arm themselves against the power of the superclubs https://www.ad.nl/buitenlands-voetb...wapenen-zich-tegen-macht-superclubs~a05b6ab8/ Competities en clubs wapenen zich tegen macht superclubs In het Hilton-hotel op Schiphol kwamen gisteren bestuurders van vrijwel alle Europese clubcompetities samen. Het doel: hun voetbal wapenen tegen het groeiende gebrek aan spanning. ,,De rijkdom van maar een handvol clubs bedreigt het gehele Europese voetbal.’’ Sjoerd Mossou 24-04-18, 08:08
Since 2000 when the level of participation in the UEFA Cup was greatly reduced due to Champions League expansion, Porto are the only UEFA Cup winner to have reached the Champions League final the following season, let alone win the tournament. So yeah, I'd say Porto's 2004 UCL victory was a surprise. UEFA/Europa winners ................ The following season in UCL 99/00: Galatasaray ........................ 00/01: Quarterfinalists 00/01: Liverpool ............................ 01/02: Quarterfinalists 01/02: Feyenoord .......................... 02/03: Group stage, finished 4th in group 02/03: FC Porto ............................. 03/04: CHAMPIONS 03/04: Valencia ............................. 04/05: Group stage, finished 3rd in group 04/05: CSKA Moscow ................... 05/06: did not qualify 05/06: Sevilla ................................. 06/07: did not qualify 06/07: Sevilla ................................. 07/08: Round of 16 07/08: Zenit ................................... 08/09: Group stage, finished 3rd in group 08/09: Shakhtar Donetsk .............. 09/10: Third qualifying round 09/10: Atlético Madrid .................. 10/11: did not qualify 10/11: FC Porto ............................. 11/12: Group stage, finished 3rd in group 11/12: Atlético Madrid .................. 12/13: did not qualify 12/13: Chelsea .............................. 13/14: Semi-finalists 13/14: Sevilla ................................. 14/15: did not qualify 14/15: Sevilla ................................. 15/16: Group stage, finished 3rd in group 15/16: Sevilla ................................. 16/17: Round of 16 16/17: Manchester United ............ 17/18: Round of 16
SoftBank teams with investors for $25bn Fifa shake ... - Financial Times https://www.ft.com/.../3a9acf48-3dc3-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4 - Vertaal deze pagina 11 apr. 2018 - Those people said the Club World Cup would be played every four years by the ... “This whole idea is that world football is not just about Europe,” said a person with knowledge of the offer. ... to spend billions of dollars to acquire an expanded version of the Club World Cup, ... London | 20 September 2018. Fifa's global football plans set up clash with Uefa | Financial Times https://www.ft.com/.../71bbe454-59d8-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0 - Vertaal deze pagina 17 mei 2018 - The proposal envisages the expansion of the Club World Cup, ... After a meeting with member clubs, national associations and players, Uefa on Wednesday offered a scathing assessment of Fifa's plans, ... a multibillion-dollar windfall for Fifa members, made up of more than .... London | 20 September 2018.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...-for-elite-league-of-top-clubs-a-1236447.html They seem to be going ULEB way, but without UEFA. Disgusting. Football is dead!
It's very unpopular among fans. I have serious doubts FIFA, UEFA &/or Associations allows that to happen. It simply won't has it undermines the Champions League which brings tons of revenue. Just for that UEFA will not allow it
I don't know if you read the link I posted, that comes from whistleblowers that care about football. Bayern hired lawyers that looked through all deals and contracts between club and league, DFB, UEFA, and they concluded they are free to leave all leagues and associations they are connected without any consequences - beside the fact that all players, if club leaves Bundesliga, can go free. But that would not happen if the club would join supermoney league as all they care of is money, money, money. I'd say UEFA is helpless here, it is all on clubs. Fact is that top clubs care only about money. They don't care about fans, if fans start leaving matches and not coming at all, they will move their home matches to Asia or America, where they can charge even more and get more money than now. But I would not mind, we would finally get more interesting European competitions. I am sick of 3-4 clubs dominating for years and of seeing champions from other countries getting slayed in the CL.
Lawyers arenot going to tell a big money source to not do it. They really like the idea of a big fight with UEFA and the FIFA too as a secundary party in it. The big point in this whole endeavour is the cartel issue. The EU is hard as a nail on uncompetitve behaviour. The Bayern lawyers know that, so they came up with a copy of the Euro Basketball Superleague and sold it to the Eleven as the way to go. If the Eleven go that way, the UEFA will fight them and it will generate big time money for the lawyers. However, while it may look like the Euro Basketball SL is a nice way out, it in reality isnot. There's a huge difference between the Eleven, which defacto constitute the "Cartel 11" and the basketball clubs. The "Cartel 11" is a closed shop with a window dressing of the 5 rotate teams because of the economic power=abuse they excert. The Basketball clubs havenot such economic power to dictate the federations and the other clubs the conditions to be part of it. The set up of the "Cartel 11" is to organize and continue and preserve their grip on the revenue stream and increase it at the cost of the non cartel members. It's nothing like the Basketball SL. I really am looking forward to interesting legal battles as part of my graduation in Economics at the Erasmus University contained a chosen judicial subject of European Competition and Cartel Law. This SL thing is going to give me lots of hours of fun because of the combination of economics and cartel law. Can't wait to see the announcement of that SL.
The SL financers (Yanks and Asians) have no clue about Europe and it's political environment's impact on sports. It simply doesnot exist overthere. Take Brexit. I read somewhere (trying to find it back) that the UK gouvernment will not tolerate clubs operate from British soil in a competition that harms the domestic leagues. On top of that the Brexit facilitates the UK to take measures on work permits that werenot legal under EU's umbrella of free labour movement. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...emier-league-fa-football-future-a7688786.html " However, as The FA and the Premier League get set for what will likely be contentious negotiations over the post-Brexit work permit regulations, they will be guided by, and will prioritise, their own stakeholders’ interests, which are likely to clash. The post-Brexit work permit regulations will have a dramatic impact on both English football (on both domestic and international stages) as well as the wider global football landscape. Of course, it is impossible to fully understand English football’s work permit regulations without first understanding the natural conflict that exists between The FA and the Premier League. The FA is primarily focused on ensuring England’s success at the international level, and therefore, it has a vested interest in ensuring that English players have the opportunity to develop and thrive in the Premier League, so as to enhance the prospects of international success for the men’s national team. The FA is particularly concerned that young promising English players are given the opportunity to thrive and develop and play at the highest level domestically. Premier League clubs, on the other hand, are focused on building the strongest possible squads, so as to succeed in this fiercely competitive (and financially lucrative league), regardless of nationality. Gareth Southgate will hope the FA lobby to improve prospects for English players (Getty) With the UK currently scheduled to leave the EU in two years (barring any extension to the negotiations or a surprise result in the upcoming general election), The FA will almost certainly attempt to use Brexit to create more opportunities for English players by restricting opportunities for all but the best EU and EEA footballers seeking to play in England. This will very likely be met with opposition by Premier League clubs, who naturally wish to be able to cast the widest possible net for which to capture talented players. Background Currently, the Home Office requires non-EU/EEA footballers to receive a governing body endorsement (“GBE”) from The FA before applying for a visa, or “work permit”. So, when The FA’s “work permit criteria” is mentioned, what is really being discussed is the GBE criteria." So the EPL six in the Brexit era are going to face the almost certain prospect to be curbed in the stars they can contract. When you put on top of that the threat that the UK is going to block you from operating from England in that SL, the only option is to move to the continent. Well, I'm sure everybody but Yanks that move clubs around in the States understand that that option is like committing suicide.
Interesting articles in relation to the footy SL. http://teamhandballnews.com/2010/11...european-capitalists-and-american-socialists/ http://teamhandballnews.com/2011/04/time-for-a-true-european-super-league-part-2-league-structure/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...pose-premier-league-breakaway-could-threaten/ Government would oppose Premier League breakaway, which could 'threaten the culture of sport in England'
Formation of an independent European Super League a daunting task and something that will not happen without gigantic global legal battles https://t.co/7HUWdkGtOI RTs appreciated if you enjoy— Bobby McMahon (@BobbyMcMahon25) November 5, 2018
This whole legal battle and the time it takes is the caveat for this ESL. How are these Eleven going to survive it? Their whole business costs them hundreds of millions a year per club. Going into years of hundreds of millions costing legal battles while you then have no matches to play without a doubt is going to lose you players. Where are the investors going to get the money from when there's no revenue in the billions needed to just run the ESL for a year? And the sponsors? Manchester United barely saved sponsor deals worth 65 million by winning the EL final that gave them entry to the CL. Are they going to pay for a several years long empty box? Really? After the revelations made by Der Spiegel the best thing the UEFA can do is to put the gun to the head of the Eleven and turn back the elite clubs favouring money grabbing proposals of the CL with equal pay for merit (=winning more = earning more) and tell those clubs to sign that for the next 20 years or take a hike into that ESL and leave the normal leagues. The uncertainty that the legal battle creates with years of non existance would any normal thinking manager make back down. Kill the magots.
The Super League may not be the way to go, but the present situation in club football isn't ideal either. Too many leagues are uncompetitive. The top 5-6 clubs in Italy, Spain, and England are far far better than the bottom 5-6 domestic clubs. At the very least, my preference is for the European leagues to be cut down from 20 teams to 15 at most. That way it frees up 10 fixtures which can go toward an expanded Champions League. Fans whose teams qualify for the CL at the minimum get to watch their sides play 6 games while the winner will compete in a maximum of 13. That's simply too few. By eliminating 10 league games along with the domestic cups, that would provide the top European clubs with more fixtures openings to create an actual Champions League that would replace the group stage format. Imagine a 32 team CL divided into 4 divisions of 8. That would result in teams playing 14 divisional matches before the KO stages. The winner of the tournament would end up playing 21 CL matches.
Another possibility is a 30 team CL with 3 divisions of 10 where teams play 18 divisional matches. It would add very interesting possibilities. The top 4 from each division advance along with the best 5th place finisher which results in 13 teams advancing to the KO round. The winner of each division automatically qualifies for the quarterfinals as a reward while the remaining 10 play each other for the last 5 quarterfinal places. Couple this with a modified 15 team domestic league (28 matches instead of 38) and the elimination or reduction in domestic cup fixtures, fans can have the best of both worlds. The tradition of the domestic campaigns with a narrower disparity in quality between top to bottom and an expanded Champions League. As an example instead of: City (25 points after 11 matches) vs Fulham (5 points) Juve (31 pts) vs Chievo (-1 pts) Fans get to watch Juve vs City more often.
Okay, you told us how you would cater to the top clubs playing in the Champions League. Now tell us how you would take care of those far far inferior clubs who would be losing 10 fixtures against the more well known clubs that help fill their grounds and bring in much needed revenue. Or do you simply want to kick them to the side of the curb and forget about them?
https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...nal-chelsea-liverpool-manchester-united-city/ European superleague could contravene EU law and allow Uefa to block breakaway competition Exclusive: Proposal that clubs be exempt from relegation could go against competition laws, warn legal experts
"In May, Uefa and the EU signed a new Memorandum of Understanding. The agreement stated that the Council of Europe and Uefa recognise that the European sports model “is based on sporting and financial solidarity mechanisms” citing “the principle of promotion and relegation” and “open competitions with a balance between clubs and national teams” which suggests that the EU would oppose the proposed relegation exemption."
On top of that: https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...y-chelsea-legal-threat-european-super-league/ Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Manchester United are likely to face legal action from the other 15 Premier League clubs if they join a proposed European superleague in 2021, breaking their pre-existing commitments to the Premier League. Secret discussions involving the five Premier League clubs to form a new continental superleague have been exposed by Der Spiegel in recent days. The German magazine revealed that 16 leading European clubs were on the draft of a “binding term sheet” to create a new league – which, according to the document, is intended to be signed by the competing clubs this month. All teams, it is reported, would leave their national leagues after the end of the 2020/21 season. However, it would be almost impossible legally for the five English clubs to leave the Premier League before the end of the 2019/22 broadcasting deal, i has learned. Binding contract It also can be brought in that these clubs have extorted beneficial "sharing" for themselves in the EPL media contracts based on them staying. It has been revealed that these clubs were riding two tracks at the same time, extorting a higher pay out for themselves based on them staying in the EPL, but while doing so at the same time plotting that very exit. To me that is basis for claiming back all the extra money that went in their pockets based on that big six benefitting agreement.
So if a bunch of teams decide to play each other in a league, it is an unfair restriction to other teams?