Perhaps, we should go to the age old Champions Cup format where every participant was its country's champion? perhaps, to play in it, a club should actually win something? And I do not give a damn that a Gibraltar champion is a million times weaker than a Premiership's second place.
The guy is right. The main idea of what he says is that the money that football, as a whole, gains is limited. ESL concentrates most of it at the top (12-20 top clubs), which means less money for everyone else. Perez, Agnelli, Glazer, etc., all believe that this money is unlimited, counting on the huge bonus from American Capital. Yeah? Maybe the first time? American bankers are not stupid or naïve. When they realize that this will not lead to increasing viewership (and I do not see how it could) and merchandising, their participation will be reduced. What then? Florentino Perez believes giving huge amounts of money to these 12-15 specific clubs will "save football"? Really?
I'd love that, along with the Cup Winners Cup. Maybe also a league format for also rans with more clubs getting in from bigger countries.
55 UEFA countries, 55 national league champions. Title in one country is meaningless compared to 4th or even 5th place in one period. England had 5 teams in one period in Champions League. Elitism started in 1992. Knock out stage participants from previous seasons were no longer present. Teams just switch in spots that lead in CL. Few clubs care about national league title: Real, Atletico, Barcelona, Bayern, Juventus, Man. City, PSG. But PSG, Juventus seem as fed up.
Don't be such an idiot. The UEFA is obliged by law to present a verified financial report: https://editorial.uefa.com/resource...-1000/04_uefa_financial_report_2019-20_en.pdf So you're quoting some imbecils who claim UEFA paid more that the bank to the epl clubs. Wonder where they find that 6 billion to do that. Because of these revenues almost everything is paid to clubs and FA's. Care to give us some illuminating insights? And no, Canon conspiracy sites arenot accepted.
A lot of companies create false reports, maybe not in Netherlands. Earnings 1000, givings 998. Earning is 2. How do we really now how much transfers cost. They agree with 100 millions, but the correct price is maybe 50. They split the rest. At least football attracts suspicious people. Nothing to do with Qanon. Bribery money is never in reports. The costs of hosting are always pumped. The prices of new stadiums: 200, 250 millions. Sponsors in football come from strange countries. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32897066 https://www.europol.europa.eu/crime-areas-and-trends/crime-areas/corruption/sports-corruption Reliable websites? I am not some altruist fan who believes that they make everything by the book.
OK, lets go with by the book opinion with hardworking people who invest in football. Every $, £, Euro exposed and represented in annual reports.
They were not worried about action from FIFA or UEFA, they got scared when the British government stepped in. They have the power - without bringing in any new legislation - to simply block every work permit for any foreign player that the "big six" might try to sign. Their squads would be decimated over time.
Dude, are you seriously that obtuse? When you don't what you are talking about, just STFU. Don't bring your QAnon conspiracies here, FFS.
It's a strange response to corruption which no doubt exists, remember when Agnelli's Juve got caught a few years back, to set up a totally corrupt league where you can buy protection from opponents you don't want in the club, and can never fail. That's when it stops being a sport.
For now the Super League is dead but we need to turn our attention to the Champions League because the ECA is trying to ram down our throats the two historical performance spots. Those need to go. In my opinion, a lot of things need to change in Europe, including the Champions League. I think that if this 36-team proposal (with or without the performance spots) goes through it will undoubtedly expand in the future to 40 and eventually 48. With that being said, here are the changes I support: 1. Eliminate all league cups and super cups (they are pointless and cause undue fixture congestion). 2. Reduce all five big leagues to 18 clubs. It will result in better play as players play fewer domestic games and the talent is better concentrated. 3. Expand the Champions League to 48 using the same 10-game Swiss system. It will allow for more berths for the big nations (thus reducing the need for the historical performance spots) and for the medium size nations. 4. Eliminate the Europa League, Super Cup, and Europa Conference League. All are pointless and only the super cup makes a profit on its own. My access list for my proposed 48-team Champions League: Title holder (spot would go to champion of league 15 if former already qualified) Leagues 1-2: top 6 Leagues 3-4: top 5 League 5: top 4 League 6: top 3 Leagues 7-10: top 2 Leagues 11-14: champion only 6 qualifiers from remaining domestic champions There would be three qualifying rounds to pair the 40 remaining champions down to six. Top 32 qualify for knockout rounds with 1-16 being seeded and 17-32 being unseeded in Round of 32 draw.
That would be the ultimate win for European football but the big teams will start a war if it's even proposed. Unfortunately, they've slowly garnered too much political power. It's important to take that power away from them and spread it evenly across entire Europe but idk if it's possible.
La Liga President Javier Tebas is spot on here. “The Super League is dead without the English and German teams, let’s be realistic, it’s dead,” Tebas told a virtual news conference. “They cannot create the project they want to create. After 20 years of threatening a Super League, finally this threat came true and in 48 hours it has disappeared. This isn’t a problem of revenue, these clubs need to reduce their expenses. We don’t need to keep increasing earnings so that players can have seven Ferraris instead of six,” Tebas said. “This is a problem of distribution. My position is very clear, we don’t need to increase revenues, we just need to manage expenses. We are not ruined financially and we don’t have to take any exceptional measures.”
From a financial point of view, the Spanish and Italian clubs need ESL much more than the English clubs. The ESL was basically the Premier League plus big European clubs. I believe that the English clubs were drawn to the idea but they were not the big drivers. Once they saw the negative reactions they quickly removed themselves.
Oh I agree this was all about money for the top clubs. Not doubt about it But to accomplish such drastic change, you cannot be so blatant with your greed like they were Had they made any attempt whatsoever to formulate a campaign about how this will benefit everyone and in the long term and how eventually it will be open to a more merit based alignment, they may have succeeded. Instead they were blithering idiots about it and everyone involved looks incredibly foolish
He is right, the clubs need to cap player salaries. Of course, that has to be done across Europe, not just in one league. That would end the super clubs and make things closer to the American model.
Doesn't need a wage cap, clubs just need to have sustainable business models, which UEFA has met huge resistance trying to enforce on clubs subsidised by competitive billionaires and sovereign funds. Debt for some like the Glaziers and the owners of AC Milan is just something you shift onto the club and skim profit off the top.
No they don’t. They need to just start exerting the power they have. It’s not the rich countries they run concacaf....it’s the numerous poor ones. From a club football perspective....that would be a good thing. These clubs and FA’s have allowed themselves to be strongarmed by what has proven to be empty threats from the select few. ******** these clubs. Rebalance the proceeds to the participants and the teams in the participants leagues. These clubs, by virtue of their size, will still have a financial competitive advantage even without hoovering up 75% of the proceeds for themselves.
He does understand it, and, in fact, that is exactly what happens in the US with most sports. The grassroots get nothing from the big leagues, it is subsidized through either the education system or pay-to-play clubs. Every system has flaws, and we could argue til the cows come home as to which is best, but understand that the drivers of this (especially the American Owners) don't care about the grassroots.
Sure if the clubs behaved themselves and managed their financials appropriately, you wouldn't need a salary cap. But is it happening? Frankly, this is largely an arms race. He who spends, wins. The financial sustainability is not happening and the clubs have resisted it as you say.
So, you want a salary cap to save the clubs from themselves? If they overspend, they should suffer the consequences. I'm generally a free market guy, so I'm against salary caps. What I am in favor of, is revenue sharing - as all the clubs in a league really are dependent on each other for the competition (it takes 2 sides to have a match). That should be done equitably at the individual FA level, and for champions league. Example for Champions league: @20% of the gate $ should go to the home side, 20% to the visitors, 20% split between the other clubs in the league of the home side, 20% to the other clubs in the league of the visitors, and 20% retained by UEFA for administration and to spread across all of UEFA. Those 2 participating sides are still coming out well ahead of everyone else. TV/media revenue should be split the same way
That's why right now is a unique opportunity to strike/re-balance the power while these supposed big clubs are reeling from their overreach. All of this talk of 'punishing' these clubs - there's no need for bans, etc. just scale back/repeal some of the rules/changes that have clearly benefited the larger clubs over the years.