Maybe so. Is your mind not open to other points of view? There's some truth in what Kroos says. UEFA and FIFA aren't saints. Why should either entity be trusted to be stewards of the game? Not saying Real Madrid, Barca and Juve should be trusted either. The status quo is never good for long term prosperity and growth. Dismissing new and/or different ideas because they aren't the "way it's always been done" out of hand is closed minded. Burying one's head in the sand isn't going to help football prosper in the future. Not sure if you or any of the other posters here have noticed....this is an echo chamber between a handful of folks who are all around the same ages. The younger generations aren't going to, or watching games. So when we are all dead gone from this world who's going to be watching football??? When the head of Germany's largest club publicly pontificates the possible benefits of scraping the 50+1 rule... The people leafing Real and Juve, and Bayern, and the English Clubs aren't dumb. They're all successful business leaders. People don't get to be that successful without being open to and willing to change. For those that have Apple TV+ you should check out The War for Football. It gives both sides of this story. Interviews with the director:
Well, you willnot find many friends/supporters for FIFA, as these are frauds on a global scale. UEFA is a different beast, money oriented no doubt, but it all goes into the member FA's. The point with the esl is, and that's the hypocritical thing of Kroos comments, the esl is geared towards grabbing all the money by a few clubs, like in the USA. The difference with the USA is that in Europe professional clubs are densily spread out over the continent, not just a few clubs in a few cities and the rest is barren. I don't trust FIFA one yota, but to put UEFA in the same league as FIFA is insane. UEFA is governed by the European FA's, not the other way around and given Europe's rule of law, both in countries and the EU as a whole, UEFA isnot corrupt. The whole bad rep UEFA got the last few years is precisely due to the pressure by those esl striving big money clubs to accomodate them ever more. That blackmail lever has been ended by the preliminary ruling of the European Court that UEFA has all the rights to come down hard on those clubs and players. There's no blockade to an esl, they can form one if they like. The original set up turned out, precisely as I years ago already predicted in discussions with Barroldino or how his user name exactly was (he created an esl thread) in a mission impossible. The big money promised didnot exist, so to survive those clubs had to stay in their leagues, but at the same time acting as parasites by competing with the clubs in their own closed CL they call the esl. UEFA spreads out the money over all FA's and clubs. ESL purpose is to monopolize the money and leave nothing on the table for the rest, just like the way the NBA etc. operate. You talk like an American, kissing up the businessmen being successful in making money. The only change they want in Europe however is the change of the money flow, but that at the cost of the whole continent's football infrastructure. That's change, but not for the better. The head of Bayern isnot promoting scrapping the 51 rule for the better of German football. He's promoting it so Bayern can get money like the top epl clubs with investors from dubious countries with dubious human rights track records. It only will mean that Bayern even more dominant in the BuLi. The BuLi is, with the exception of Bayern, in fact the most competitive league in Europe thanks to that 51+ rule. There's no improvement possible by scrapping it, on the contrary, it will get worse. Europe isnot dismissing it for not being like it has been before. Europe is dismissing it as it's aimed at destroying the very nature of football culture by excluding everyone outside the closed circle from the revenues. European sport's culture is raw competition, especially in football. Closed leagues are the opposite of that. And nobody is preventing an esl at all. Under EU laws they can start it tomorrow if they want to, but completely on their own, not as part, parasite within the national leagues.
Yes it is. Changes that improve the product I support. The introduction for instance of play off matches in Dutch football was a good thing. Dunno where you get that from. It's a race to get a ticket for a Feyenoord match, as it is for most other Dutch clubs, because only a small amount is available for free sale. A big part of the stadium seats are sold to whole season ticket holders. Anyway, the whole esl set up was geared towards the non-European football fans, but that turned out to be DOA.
Tell me, why arenot Real, Juve and Barca making the jump on their own? Kroos is just a whining kid. Put your money where your mouth is. Go and show you can survive in your fairytale football league. Successful businessmen, but they want to stay and suck the money tit of the UEFA, while playing parasite on CL revenues. If they know what they do and are successful, why don't they jump and start an American style Europe wide footbal league with those esl pretenders? They know the drill from the States. Just do it or stfu. They're not willing to change, they want to parasite.
Krroos is right. After all, why wouldn't UEFA support an ESL that is so "meritorious" that you can get relegated domestically but still retain your place in the ESL? Or an ESL where a new domestic champion would have to start at the fourth level of the ESL well away from the "big" clubs where most of the revenue will be? Alternatively, maybe Kroos should extract himself from his employer's ass and at least acknowledge that this new proposal is a wolf wrapped up in pro/rel clothing whose goal is to protect A22's clients, namely the "big" clubs.
https://www.ad.nl/buitenlands-voetb...ed-we-bevinden-ons-op-een-splitsing~a0364b99/ Ten Hag not against esl, but hey...are you, being paid millions, going to contradict the views on the matter of those who line your pockets? Okay, Klopp did, but he's an outlier anyway. The crux of the lies these esl fanboys keep promoting it's for the good of the game. It isnot. It's for safeguarding against competition their revenues as these are in danger when you donot perform.
The British billionar bidding for Manunited against the human rights violators states he does so for protecting the football culture.
lol pro/rel makes players work hard and trive to improve. from going after championship place to champon league spaces you need something to push you to be better. even relegation place push players to be better then players in 17th or 16th place in league
Most players on relegated teams are sold or traded to ease on spending. Specifically the most expensive players are the ones that won't stay nor play in a 2nd division.
I get the feeling that the many of the comments on that vid that are for pro/rel were either made by teenagers who have zero knowledge of the history of the mechanism or grown adults who didn't watch the vid in its entirety and can't fathom a league without pro/rel.
Funny, this is EXACTLY what we say about the folks crying about instituting pro/rel here in the US .... Tell me why don't they do it on their own? Why don't they put their money where their mouth is? Why don't they go and show the system can survive in their fairytale soccer land? If p/r really is this glorious, magic thing for soccer why don't they jump and start a Euro style USA wide football league with their pretending selves? They aren't actually wanting change, they want to parasite off of what MLS took almost 30yrs to help make happen. So literally the same sham that domestic leagues with p/r employ ... Weird how people get up in arms for calling the spade a spade.
The professional league standards are kinda stacked against the"build a better mousetrap" scenario unless you have another collection of high net worth individuals with 15,000 seat stadiums spread across 3 of the 4 time zones. I mean if you just want to keep popping up 3rd divisions to fold every 3 or 4 years then it's fine...I guess But, those standards could be changed by USSF, so there's always hope...
Yeah, The USSF should abolish the Pro-League Standards. Fox, ESPN, CBS and NBC will be backing up brinks trucks full of BILLION$ of dollars for the rights to broadcast the riveting USL Premiership relegation battle between Colorado Springs and Pawtuckett in front of 3,000 rabid fans. And yes, that sounds stupid, because it is. Why would it sound smart to the Broadcast Executives and those in charge of US Soccer?
Even if we all agree that MLS is a horribly organized league, it wins by default because it's the only American soccer league that didn't die.
Who said abolish? Change.... change to allow for alternate forms of ownership so a 1st division doesn't require one person with 40 million/70 million for all owners. Nobody needs big network broadcasts since the standards say For clarity, high‐quality internet streaming of regular season games satisfies this requirement. Change to allow teams that are in "markets" of less that 1,000,000 people to have a chance. maybe there are rabid soccer players in Paducah , allow for a 1st division with 9 southern california teams, 5 from the greater NYC area, 4 from texas and paducah and miami There seem to be a ton of garbage stations on OTA and smarttvs these days. I can find NISA on BeinExtra(?), I just have to look for "To Be Announced" in the summer. Somebody might be willing to gamble on a game with the potential to grow. I mean a few years back hardly anyone was watching womens softball or cornhole on ESPN, look at those numbers now.
The soccer history in our country is what lead to these things being the case. There's a reason why all those leagues with the "Paducah" and Kearny (actual club) based clubs didn't last, make it, survive, grow ... The PLS ensures a commitment to being an actuality rather than just having folks line up to try and be the guy that gets the lucky bounce to get the yellow ring to go around the bottle top. The then MUCH further away USL helped ratify the very PLS that are "stacked against" them, as did the now in lawsuit name only NASL. Despite the rhetoric you'll hear from even some of the "owner types" they all know and understand that there HAS to be an underlying constant line or soccer simply won't work here. I mean the ASL lasted for 50yrs but it had a graveyard full of clubs, and guess which ones wound up in the dirt and which ones lasted (I'll give you a hint, its very similar to which ones would qualify for the population PLS today and which ones wouldn't). These lines weren't drawn arbitrarily or to align with a certain league's existing make up. However, to your point ... USLC absolutely could push for D1 if everyone got on the same page and wanted it. USSF has already shown they'll grant good faith waivers and even hardship waivers to leagues for sanctioning. They already meet TZ req, and if they aren't at the 3/4 in 1m metro mark they're damn close, and I don't think they're as far off on the ownership bit as many believe. YES, investment would need to be done on the stadium/infrastructure front but many of them already have plans or built in exp in their existing stadiums.
Again funny how the Spanish clubs (and players) are now whining when they don't have the most money. Nobody at the Bernebeau were complaining in the 2000's when they were getting Ronaldo, Modric, and Bale among others from the prem. Now I do think the money the prem is making will re shape European football but I don't think the prem are doing anything wrong. Not that UEFA are angels. I personally think some of the UEFA leadership should be in jail for gross negligence based on their handling of the champions league final but at least UEFA have mechinisms for groups other than just the richest clubs to have a voice. My fear is the super league will make the domestic leagues nothing more than league versions of the carrabou cup.
Question Are the non-pro sports rivalries like between colleges/highschools or maybe uni's state rivalries or do these go on a national scale. In other words how spread out are these?
Most college rivalries are regional, within a state or with a neighboring state. Nationally some people pay attention to them. Ohio State v. Michigan in college football draws interest from across the nation although not as much as in those states. Duke v. North Carolina in college basketball are very close to each other in North Carolina but when the teams are good their games get national attention. Notre Dame (located in Indiana) v. Southern California in college football used to be a big rivalry between teams that aren't geographically close at all. That has dropped off some as they are usually not both highly regarded at the same time. Army/Navy football gets national attention that isn't based on geography or the quality of the teams. There are other examples of all these types of rivalries across college sports. Schedules are mostly based on regional conferences so teams mostly play opponents that are reasonably close at least for most of the season. That is changing some as conferences expand to cover bigger areas but the rivalry games are mostly the geographically close ones. High school sports are almost entirely within individual states so their rivalries are usually contained locally.
7 wins in a row and we still can't shake off Wrexham. Yet if two teams went up automatically the season would be over.
They're hyperlocal, in a lot of cases. There were two high schools in the town where I lived in Michigan, and the school rivalry went back to the 1950's. Part of it was that one school was seen as the rich kid school, and the other one was more working class, because it picked up more rural areas.