And what then about Napoli v Juventus? That's definitely not a derby and they're not fighting for championships. That should not be a rivalry by any means. How is that possible?
1980's and Napoli's success. Now a days its cooled off. By the way in Italian history Florence and Torino were the ones fighting for the capital (originally). Italian culture makes you support the city-state and that is the reason why their is a general dislike between the two. And Liverpool vs. Manchester is a local derby; 40 miles isn't much when you compare it the 200 the seperate Arsenal and Man U. Its only 3 between Man City and Man U.
But that shouldn't matter. According to Richard any rivalry, no matter how long it's existed, between non-neighburs stops immediately once one of the teams aren't in the title hunt. Do you think that's the case as well? I think it takes time. I know it takes time. Atleast until all active players who were in that title hunt are retired. And I don't even live in London, which seems to be Richards criteria for understanding what a 'rivalry' is.
Jesus christ on a bike... Rivalries over playing for honours fade pretty quick unless there is something else (such as events on the last day in 1982 in Italy) which gives rise to an extra little bit of needle. You're a Norwegian who occasionally travels to watch big clubs play each other, who has no interest in club football beyond that. You support a club that's disliked in Italy because they have a history of alledged corruption, and their gloryhunting fans are despised countrywide, much like Man Utd. I just think there's just a slim chance you are viewing this from a slighty skewed angle. Still, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it goes against everything I've seen from knowing real fans (as opposed to tv fans) and going to around 800 games over the last 25 years.
I think you are slightly off there, I'm pretty sure supremacy in a city or a region is a factor. I'm looking from a German viewpoint here, where in the upper echelons of the football pyramid it's kind of rare for 2 clubs from the same city to play in the same division, so we hardly have real city rivalrys where fans more or less live in the same streets, but a lot regional rivalrys. Gladbach-Köln about supremacy in the Rhineland, Werder-HSV about supremacy in the North, Jena-Erfurt in Thuringia - in recent years, Hertha and Cottbus formed a surprisingly fierce "capital vs province" rivalry. You also have rivalrys that are rooted in a more general animosity between neighboring regions like with Stuttgart - Karlsruhe (Baden vs Württemberg) and Bayern-Nürnberg (Bavaria vs Franconia). I'm pretty sure if a European Superleague ever gets started, you'd get 'local' rivalrys between clubs from the same country, possibly also between clubs from different countrys, but who are somewhat close to each other, or where there's a rivalry between the countrys (eg Germany - Netherlands). Though I agree that they probably won't be as fierce as they get when people actually know each other.
I could totally see that happening. Liverpool and United would be in that league anyway so that rivalry would continue. Barca RM. Etc. Any English side against say, Rangers, would be big. As you said Holland and Germany. Italy Germany. Holland Italy. Spain France. Spain Portugal. Whatever. Things like these would evolve and create new rivalries. I don't see a problem with most of these games becoming run of evmill just because they may not be top four or top three. A game between super power clubs will be big no matter what. What's run of the mill is these POA v Maccabi games you get today. In a European Superleague all teams would be huge so you'd never get those kind of games. Then again, that's the charm of European football that those smaller clubs can get in and make some noise. That would disappear with a Superleague.
We already had that. It was called the cl league second group stage . only the 16 best teams in Europe. Can’t get much more elite than that. It was scrapped after 2 seasons because it didn’t get the crowds or the ratings. And that was just 6 games. Imagine if that was drawn out over 34 or 38 games. What a bore that would be. There is simply not enough people who would care about a league without tradition, relegation, legitimacy and most of the traditional rivalries. Europe is far too large and national in its thinking for people to have any identification with that sort of competition. This prediction of the European super league is so boring. Just had a look at observer’s prediction from 2000. They were saying that a world (!) league would be established by 2010. The format of the champions league is exactly right and the vast majority of the clubs are happy with that .
...realise your experience of football is a niche subculture of football fandom, rather than being representative of the mainstream. Even for football tourists, a tourist will always just be a tourist. What your prefer to do with your match programme, when back in the privacy of your hotel room, is your business.
oh, I didn't realise I had to spell it out. Q.What else should I do? A.You have to realise your experience of football is a niche subculture of football fandom, rather than being representative of the mainstream. Of course, it might have been one of the other two questions. Q.What does that mean? A.It means you live in Norway and overwhelmingly, your experience of football is from watching foreign football on TV. Q.Do you jerk off to the match programs? A.No I don't. Is it a hobby you recommend?
I don't want a super league, but if there was one how come there couldn't be international promotion and relegation? Spots in the super league could remain within countries, meaning if Liverpool got relegated out of the Super League they would be replaced by the top club in the EPL minus the Big Four. Or UEFA could make a system to decided what countries' champions should be the x clubs promoted to the super league to replace the x number of clubs that got relegated. It may be a rare example, but imagine if there was a super league that still had Leeds United because it was created long enough ago and there was no relegation.
not going to happen. we are not 50 states of one country or something like the USA. each country is completely different in everything, history, culture, languages. the derbies give the games something extra, to fight for, city vs city, hood vs hood, for the fans and the teams.
they call us Europe, but were not Europe, we are only in the geographical part of the world that is called Europe. But most US people can't see it that way, because they come from such a big country, as big as our continent.
Theoretically, you could do that, but it would mean only clubs from countries that already have clubs in the league could get promoted. To have a functioning pro/rel system there shouldn’t be more than 3 leagues below the higher division. Maybe 4. So you would have to divide Europe into 3-4 regions for second division European football. That just wouldn’t work.
err...no. I've been to about 700-800 games, I'd guess. Been a season ticket holder for approaching 25 years. Watched football in over 20 countries in three continents at somewhere around 180 venues, nearly a third of which are outside England. So, err, no.
Well yes, (if you discount relegation battles) derbies aside, games with nothing at stake beyond the 3 points are ordinary. That's what run of the mill means.