..... Let's see, you asked: and I stated: My response directly addresses your question/statements. By virtue of being "promoted" to the CL the top end clubs are receiving substantial monies through more than one source above what the rest of their domestic league-mates are. That contributes to/plays a hand in the disparity. You get a glass ceiling effect ... just ask Everton or Tottenham.
Wouldn't surprise me to see more of this. I think most countries will eventually move to a very truncated system; 3 divisions at most. Everybody else in regional divisions o
The reason stated is to allow teams more financial stability and allow them to make long-term investments, without worrying about relegation. That basically backs up my concern that pro/rel can results in financial instability, something US soccer is currently too fragile to withstand.
Yeah but your grasping at straws and here is why. First I completely agree that the Champions league exacerbates the financial divide between the clubs at the top and bottom. Not disagreeing with that. And yes I guess you could say it's a form of "promotion" although i think you are stretching the definition. So we agree on that. Here's my issue. The cause of the economic disparity is not because of the system of "pro/rel" it's because certain teams get access to revenue other sides don't. The fact that the participants are decided through "pro/rel" (again in parentheses because I think it's a stretched definition) is actually a small bulwark against the very stratification you are complaining about. If you wanted to reduce the disparity the LAST thing you would do is eliminate the "pro/rel" aspect of champions league qualification.
It's inherent to the nature of "pro/rel" though. It's exactly why Championship clubs are crying foul on the parachute payments. Clubs qualified by table placement for promotion to, and relegation from the EPL. They're paid based on that. In terms of the CL, Arsenal are feeling the effects of finishing outside of the CL slots and not being "promoted" to the bigger competition. ... and again, it isn't "because of" but rather: Pro/Rel contributes to/exacerbates the issues. How? By placing clubs in direct competition with more clubs that have these significantly greater means and/or additional revenue streams in a greater concentration. By virtue of pro/rel you get the Liverpool and City and Chelsea in the same "place" as a Norwich and Brighton. It's how you get a Warsaw with a Madrid too (same exact application of promotion that puts Norwich in a league with City determines how teams get into the CL). YES, there will always be clubs with revenues/etc above others due to location/etc. In a closed league that is mitigated to a much greater extent than in an open league. Actually the "pro/rel" aspect of the CL ... SHOULD be gone because it SHOULD be only the champions. But, again ... money rules all.
That's tricky though, because if it's only the Champions and they still get a lot of money for participating, history showed that it was far more common for one club to dominate Europe for multiple seasons, as the field was far weaker. So the money gets concentrated on one team. Like you said though, there's no un-banging that drum. The answer would be a sensible hard cap on transfers and salaries for playing and coaching staff, so being wealthy was still a strength but no more so than having a good development program, scouting team or management. Again, little chance of that happening as the Bosman Ruling has confirmed that players are normal workers and the EU is unlikely to allow any step that artificially reduces compensation below full market value.
Although CL money is big for the top 6 in the money league it's misleading to claim it's the cuase for the widening gap in finance with the rest. The big money comes from marketing stuff like shirt sales etc. Voetbal International published this week an article about the financial status of the financial big clubs. Of the top six about 50% revenues come from that marketing stuff. The clubs lower in the money table have considerably less income from that. Liverpool made big CL money, but falls behind because of that marketing pull. That has nothing to do with P/R or CL.
Uh, wouldn't the Champions League also drive shirt sales? International marketing doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Yup, but it didnot bump up Liverpool with two consecutive finals and one win. The big pullers are Barca, Real, Juve, Bayern.
No the champions league as a whole exacerbates the issue. Imagine the Champions League was some kind of invitational tournament, you would have exactly the same problem. It's like if your car doesn't start. You replace the spark plugs at it still doesn't start, you can't then honestly continue to blame the spark plugs. You realize that's still pro/rel under your definition right?
There seems to be a lot of whining about the Champions League how it is destroying modern football, especially from the cranky Jonathan Wilson ( Who I think is a time traveler and is actually a teacher of Classics at a Boarding School in Durham from 1905) but I actually think the system we have is pretty good. I wouldn't mind a salary cap of some kind but overall I think any changes carry a high chance of unintended consequences. Plus it's tough to go backwards and honestly do we really want to? Do we want only champions? I think there are a lot of problems with world football at the moment, and it doesn't feel like anyone in power is actually interested in addressing them, but I don't think the CL is one of them. Although they're about to F*** with it so that won't last for long.
The numbers donot lie. The article commented at the Liverpool numbers that they did make more money, but despite that didnot catch up with the top clubs. The top 4 clubs simply added more money on their pile than other clubs.
You don't think Liverpool Football Club have a major international presence? I don't think I've seen any team in any sport retain relevance throughout a 30 year title drought more effectively than them and while it wasn't just the Champions League finals, they certainly didn't hurt the global fan base.
Honestly, I think the CL is one of the prime tools that teams outside the EPL (and some inside it) are using to leverage their size and influence. Football has been a sport of "haves" and "have-nots" for a couple of generations at least but as HttK pointed out, the Champions League has exacerbated it and yes, it very much did start with the move from the competition containing only champions. Think about it: we've now got 4th placed teams qualifying directly from group stages at the expense of actual champions from weaker FAs. 50% of the group stage teams come directly from England, Germany, Spain and Italy, plus 3 from France, meaning that the overwhelming majority of the 50 other league champions in Europe don't even see the first round proper. That has even further reaching ramifications because it means that unless you're a top league, your chances of ever catching up are severely hampered. Even if you do make it into the group stages and beyond, you'll actually receive a different rate of prize money for your progress. So yes, the UCL is very much a vehicle for the many issues in modern football.
Bayern is a little surprising, though being the most popular team and best known team fro Germany no doubt helps. One reason Juve spent the money to get CR7, was to grow their brand internationally. This shows that that was money well spent. Barca & Real shouldn't surprise anyone. Real is one of if not the most popular sports club in the world.
There's a counterpoint, though: CONCACAF "promotes" to their CL and you don't see this increasing stratification. Seems to me, it's not the "pro/rel" that's corrupted the system, it's the filthy lucre.
I've been pointing out on this thread for many years the impact of the change from just champions qualifying for the CL and have caught a lot of flak on here for expressing the view that it's been the major factor in cementing the dominance of a few teams. I am glad to see others are now accepting that viewpoint.
Liverpool's "branding" increased 20% in 2019 (Brand Finance 50). They're more popular in China and the US than Bayern or Madrid. I think Madrid's global dominance eminates from Europe and Latin America.
A phoenix Bury AFC will likely be playing in the North West Counties League next season. With the ability to get promoted up the pyramid based on their performances on the field of play, there's a realistic chance they'll get to a level or two below the Football League quite quickly. Not sure where they'll be playing, but presumably not at Bury FCs Gigg Lane given the contorted mortgaging of that ground by their previous owner. And it looks like Bury FC will finally be put out of its misery: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...l-begin-life-in-10th-tier-of-english-football
I also think the TV revenue that the EPL gets has given the top sides a lot of political power and they've become increasingly brazen about using that leverage against the lower leagues.
Liverpool Football Club had a major international presence in the 1970's! Before most clubs knew what 'international presence' even means!!
A bit like Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps. The success of their phoenix teams in the lower divisions led to successful MLS expansion bids.
Yes, I know. I thought that's what I said. I also know Americans that became fans due to their Champions League exploits.