Does Blatter and Platini have a point? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/rorysm...hows_why_blatter_and_platini_may_have_a_point You look around Europe every league seems to be struggling
The best paragraph in that telegraph article is this: ''That world is a long, long way, or a global financial meltdown so complete that the gilded towers of the Premier League are affected, away. It is not just Sporting. Ajax have been plundered of all their best players. PSV, Feyenoord, Panathinaikos, Steaua Bucharest, Red Star, Sparta Prague, Benfica, Porto, Anderlecht, Marseille have all gone. The exotic names that used to make Europe so exciting, so unknown, have all fallen on the altar of football's unabashed capitalism. They are now feeder clubs, either officially or unofficially, of their young players to the cash-rich teams on our shores or sides so irrelevant that third-rate footballers ply their trade in some of the cathedrals of the game.''
Blatters and Platini's points would carry more sincerity to them had they not been so myopic and selective in their nature. As many people have said, no one had a problem when Real Madrid were clearing up a decade ago, winning 3 CL titles inside 5 years? No one remotely gave a sh!t when Serie A were clearing up from the back end of the 80's the mid-90's while English clubs were banned? How about when Real Madrid won 5 in a row? Or when English clubs won 8 in a row or something during the 70's and 80's? Infact, given that, it should come as no surprise that English clubs are now threatening to do somethng similar? It's just that the whining b!tces running UEFA can't stomache it this time around and seeing as we don't take to many hooligans with us any more, there's no reason to ban us this time around. No one cared when it wasn't the English league sides succeeding, but now it all seems a bit convenient to start moaning about it all. About how money has ruined the game, despite the fact that UEFA's very own Champions League is deforming leagues all over Europe with it's uneven distribution of money giving a select number of sides an infinite competitive advantage over any possible rivals and therefore making the "competition" obselete. They're comments are highly selective given the topic of them. Blatters comments that "only a small number of clubs can now with the EPL" rings hollow when you look at France and Holland where the domestic champions are competing within a group of one? Forget the fact that the same applies in Spain, Portugal, Scotland, Italy and Germany, to name a few, where only a small number of teams enter their domestic championships every year with realistic hopes of winning them. The very nature of league football means that only a small amount of teams can compete for the title every year anyway. UEFA's bloated financial rewards for this success ensures that anyone who is successful is rewarded so handsomely that the rest are frequently left behind and never have a hope of closing the gap. The over-riding point is this: if UEFA want to help football gain back it's competitive edge then the whole world would jump on board and do what it takes, but their comments do not suggest that this is their aim. The aim appears to be, purely and simply, to limit English clubs, as apposed to helping the rest of Europe. It's easier (and cheaper) to limit a small group of successful clubs than it is to help a larger group of failing clubs. There is no ethical or professional obligation for the EPL to stop spending so the rest of Europe can catch up with us. It took England 15 years or more to recover from the Heysel ban and I didn't see the rest of Europe making concessions for us when we re-entered in 1993 or whenever it was? In similar vein, EPL clubs should not allow themselves to be brow-beaten into compromising their own quest for success based on the hollow and hypocritical whining of an orgainisation that has done more to damage football than it has to help it in recent times through poor distribution of wealth.
pretty rich for those at UEFA to moan about it when it was UEFA's tournament, with the way it purposefully distributes the lion's share of the champions league cash to the same clubs, which helped create the "monster" in the first place. I think one key difference between Italian and Spanish strong periods is the number of foreign players in each time. As Italian and Spanish sides still fielded teams largely comprised of players from their own country, there was perhaps less sense of those teams "buying success", even if in reality there was little difference. An AC Milan teams full of 11 bought Italians is no less bought than an Arsenal team without an English player in it.
the clubs mentioned there, while they often did compete, never competed for top players. As for Ajax lol!!! They were always a feeder club. this to a good degree was their model as a club, and they moved to the amsterdam arena to become more of a buying club and have the financial muscle to compete at the top level in Europe. and spanish teams haven't bought success? what about the galacticos? didn't barca buy maradona way back when? lineker? in italy, italian clubs in the 80's had the biggest buying power in the world and bought many top players. platini, papin, Ian Rush, and the rest all were bought by italian clubs. It's all envy; this is the root of this opposition to English domination of European football.
Well Ajax won the champions league a little over 10 years ago, and 30 or so years ago were undoubtedly Europes superpower, so they haven't simply been a feeder club. The beef that platini and co have is partly that the English clubs have dominated so much, that I agree with. Also, that these clubs have done so not with homegrown players but by cherry picking the best talent in the world. Yes I know Real won it with the best of Brazil and France, but the Real team of the late 90s/early 00s had a Spanish feel to it, unlike the distinctly cosmopolitan Liverpool and Arsenal of today. The problem is that there is a vicious cycle going on; every year that the big 4 English teams qualify for the CL and do well in it, the more money they make (at the expense of everyone else) and the more power they have to buy the best players. It's a cycle that will only be broken when other English teams qualify for the CL, or when the rules are changed somehow. I don't think that the likelihood of a 'smaller' team winning it has improved in recent years. The 00s might have 1 'smaller' team winner - Porto. There is a little oligopoly of teams that dominate the CL. Thats what Blatter/Platini want to change. Right now its English teams. But if the tournament was dominated for years on end by all 4 spanish or italian teams I'm sure the reaction from UEFA HQ would be the same.
See, this illustrates the selective nature of the arguement. 10-15 years ago English clubs were the eones with a distinct disadvantage to their European counterparts because it was the Spanish and Italian sides that were getting to pick and choose the world best players. None of the top Argentinians, Brazilians, Spanish, Italian or French players were that bothered about playing in England. Indeed, EPL clubs were signing obscure Scandanavian players mostly, along with easern European players as well. The Romario's, Ronaldo's, Rivaldo's, Zidanes, Del Piero's, Batistuta's, Nedveds, Inzaghi's, Maradona's, Roberto Carlos', Cafu's etc were all playing in Spain and Italy getting paid fortunes and were never interested in moving to England. Now that EPL clubs have closed the gap and moved ahead everyone is whining like a b!tch. It all goes in round abouts. Sooner or later parity will be formed again but I'd much rather see it happen naturally than have it forced upon us by Platini, Blatter and the rest of a jealous Europe.
I've said it before, but if Platini actually cares about the lack of competition he should abolish the champions league, or remove the financial rewards.
If Platini had his way I'm sure he would revert back to the old format which was in place pre-1992. He has actually said as much in the past, but unfortunately the clubs are too powerful nowadays. I don't think Platini is anti-English whatsoever, I just think he is concerned about the fusion between business and football and the Premier League seem to the one looking at ideas like the 39th game and so on. I think he comes in for a lot of undeserved criticism.
I agree, I think Platini is concerned that one league is dominating, one league providing the Champions League quarter finalists year after year. The fact that it is the English league right now is why a lot of people take Platini to be anti-English. I would imagine his complaints would be the same if it were la liga or any other league dominating European football for years in a row. years ago Platini proposed a giant knockout tournament (256 team I think) to replace the CL and UEFA cup. it would never happen of course, but I like the fact he challenges the status quo. he's mellowed out a lot in office though.
They doesn't have a point, no. For the simple reason that they are the authors of the very problem they're now wringing their hands over so publicly. They created the bloated farce that is the Champions' League. They took it to two group stages (and back again), they expanded the format to 64 teams and, crucially, they gave the big leagues four places each. That, more than anything, killed the competition as it once was, as it might still be. Here's the list of quarterfinalists for the last five years: Porto Chelsea Lyon Real Madrid AC Milan Monaco Arsenal Deportivo Juventus PSV Bayern Inter Villareal Benfica Barcelona Valencia United Roma Schalke Fenerbace And here's the list of clubs who made it to the quarter finals during the period 1995 - 2000: Legia Warsaw Borrussia Dortmund Spartak Moscow Panathinaikos Ajax Real Madrid Juventus FC Nantes Rosenborg Atletico Madrid Auxerre Porto Manchester United Bayer Leverkusen AS Monaco Dynamo Kiyv Bayern Inter Olympiakos Kaiserslautern Chelsea Lazio The only noticeable trend is the gradual (very gradual) disappearance of some of the more exotic names, as mentioned in the article. And that is directly attributable to the increase of places for the big four leagues, at the explicit expense of the lesser leagues. Look at Liverpool this season - we got into the Champions League from fourth place, courtesy of beating the Champions of Belgium. By rights, Standard Liege should have had automatic entry into the CL and we should be in the quarter finals of the UEFA Cup right now. But all the people who whine about the CL being a diluted or boring product always pull up short when you offer them an alternative where the competition features the champions of Belgium, but not the big brand names from the main leagues. So in a way, UEFA and all of football's CHampions' League-era fans are equally to blame, with an equally small amount of things to actually complain about.
You mean, the broadcasters are too powerful. Was it the clubs that forced Platini to increase the European Championships to 24 teams?
I bet he wouldn't be complaining if it were Italy and Juve dominating. I think you're over estimating the EPL dominating the CL. We can only have three semi-finalists, no more than Italy in '03, and may only have one. Barca and Bayern are as good as anyone left in. Last year the Italian teams were all trashed by English opposition, this year it was a lot closer, the gap isn't as big as you think. The constant manager-cycling at Chelsea will undo them eventually. Maybe instead of trying to knock the top teams off, they should be wondering why the giants of Europe aren't up to scratch. It's not like Juve, Inter, Real etc are poor teams who can't afford to keep up with Arsenal's record-breaking transfer spending.
until we reach the dominance that italy had in 1989-99 people can stfu abou dominance. tey went to 28 finals in europe in 11 years, won 15 and lost 13. they broke the world transfer record for players 18 times out of 21 from the 50s till 2000, no one batted an eyelid. as brian reade points out in an article recently, platinis comments of ronaldo to real madrid for 70m pounds 'its ok, the best players want to go to the biggest clubs', and on kaka to city for 100m pounds 'its obscene, i want to put an end to these kinds of transfers'. finaly, he has accused the epl of cheating, 'doping with cash', which is a disgrace. juve were actually caught cheating, but this does not warrant a mention.
i don't see this as so much a complaint about english domination as it is about the utter emasculation of all but a very few leagues. the problem with the sporting result wasn't who they lost to (obviously bayern isn't english), but the fact that they simply cannot compete. now, that point's arguable, of course, and i don't think that sporting's dire performance is wholly representative of the gap - it's nowhere near that bad. but the difference between the era of italian 'dominance' and this one (supposedly of the english) isn't who is winning, but who is competitive - or more specifically, who is not competitive. the fact is that the problem was clearly developing by the mid90s, and there were voices of concern way back then. but we cannot really blame platini for failing to lead that crusade when he wasn't even in the job back then, can we? i don't know what the answer is; but to me, when clubs like benfica, ajax, and numerous other giants of the european game have been rendered utterly insignificant, european football has a problem. and i applaud the likes of platini for at least looking into it.
Cryuff went to Barca. Bergkamp, Overmars, the De Boer brothers, Kluivert, Kanu, all went to bigger leagues overseas. The 1995 champions league team had broken up over the next 2 or 3 years because of this. Ajax had traditionally relied on rearing young players and competing on this basis, rather than buying players for big money. This is why the Ajax system is world renowed. The beef that platini and co have is partly that the English clubs have dominated so much, that I agree with. Also, that these clubs have done so not with homegrown players but by cherry picking the best talent in the world. Yes I know Real won it with the best of Brazil and France, but the Real team of the late 90s/early 00s had a Spanish feel to it, unlike the distinctly cosmopolitan Liverpool and Arsenal of today. [/quote] United in 2008 had Rio, Carrick and Rooney. How is that not English? Clearly it doesn't apply in every case. Surely this is no different from the other top leagues in Europe. Italy and Spain have been for years dominated by a few clubs.
For me the preferable alternative would be the original format UEFA had in place prior to 1992: A champions only European Cup, the UEFA Cup, and a Cup Winners Cup.
Not sure about the CWC, I'm happy with those teams going into the UEFA Cup. The problem remains, however, that the big clubs won't put up with "Champions only" and in any case, 15 years of Champions' League has bred a generation of fans who don't want to see that either. We're stuck with what we've got. All we can do is stop UEFA being idiots about it any more than is strictly unavoidable. This new UEFA League thing they're starting next year is presumably intended to be a counterweight to the monster of their own making, let's see how that pans out.
I can't stand the Champions League, mainly because the whole format is geared around generating profit for all parties concerned at the expense of an exciting and fair competition - I can remember the old European Cup and thought it was far more exciting than what we've got nowadays. I don't really care what they do with the Champions League any more, but as a football fan first and foremost I'd be more inclined to want to watch it if it reverted aback to the old format. Like you say, they're never going to revert back to the old format, so instead of moaning too much about it I stopped watching it last season, and so far, I haven't watched a minute of any match in this years competition. I also agree about the new generation of fans comment, and I doubt I'm part of the new target audience which the clubs are keen to attract anyway.
You are being so myopic about this that you don't even realize you're making a case against your overall point (which sums up as It's a Anti-English thing). If no one cared when English clubs were dominating in the 70s than why that says about your point? Just maybe maybe they're concerned now, because now major successful clubs are filled with mostly foreigners (regardless of them being English or Spanish clubs).
My point is, no one at UEFA, or FIFA, had a problem with particular leagues enjoying periods of doiminance, until Platini came in and took umbridge with England having a little bit of success. All of a sudden he and Blatter have an issue with certain leagues enjoying periods of success, right when the balance of power appears to be swinging towards England for the first time in 30 years. Bit conveneient, do you not think? Somethjing tells me that had Italy been enjoying this level of success, Mr. Platini wouldn't have any problem watching his beloved Juventus clear up along with AC Milan etc. Joao Havelange never tried to limit Italy's major clubs when Juventus and Milan were making finals every year so I don;t like Platini trying to limit the EPL as well. Naming our clubs as borrowers who ruin the game, and ignoring the debts currently attributable to Barceloina, Real Madrid, Valencia, Juventus and Inter to name a few is to ignore the facts to benefit his flawed argument. At least the English clubs have the ability to pay off their debts over time. The Spanish clubs, Valencia especially, are, for want of a better phrase, fooked. I agree that Standard Liege have a right to compete without having to negotiate a tie with Liverpool first, but some believe that this might lead to even more bloodshed at the hands of bigger clubs. For instance, if the champions of Cyprus get into the group dstages and draw Barcelona, what do you think is going to happen? 5-0? 10-0? 20-0? It would be humiliating. If Sporting Lisbon can go down 12-1 to Bayern Munich, what do you think would happen if Standard Liege went to the Nou Camp? Just another spin on it. I still think that chamopoins of smaller leagues deserve a crack at it though.