First Steps towards Euro "Super League"?

Coach, i would personally be seriously against this.... they have this league.. its called THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE.. and you have to earn your way in.. ya?

 

One of the things in question is the club vs. country debate. The individual clubs pay huge bucks for the players they have, yet they have to make the player available to National Teams (even for meaningless friendlies). I don't think National Teams pay money for the players. If this is the case, essentially, FIFA and the FAs make huge money from Euros and WCs with no money to the individual clubs. This puts the club at risk since they invest so much in a player. What if Thierry Henry got injured in a France friendly? Arsenal and the other big clubs have been affected by this since many of their players are Internationals. If you are going to decrease the number of domestic games, then you're going to have to compensate the clubs and find ways to compensate players who play more games than others.

FIFA has the WC (every 4 years) and that lame Confederations Cup tourney (every 2 years) - if you reduce the domestic games, then reduce the irrelevant touraments . . . (UEFA runs the EURO). Is FIFA going to do that? No, b/c it reduces their revenues. It's a power/greed battle . . . really, I can see the big 14 or 20 teams going on its own . . . and they'll have the best players - basically will become an NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB style league in Europe where all the best football players in the world play. Why? B/C they'll have huge TV deals and salaries. I don't want to see it happen so hopefully it'll be worked out b/c there are too many games being played. While watching the last WC, I thought the play wasn't as exciting as in the past just because the players were knackered from too much footy.

W.

 

Which is why I like the CL the way it is now - you earn it . . . anyhow, they did reduce the number of games in the CL by removing the 2nd group stage. At least UEFA is helping out . . . FIFA should too.

 

Removing the 2nd group stage helps so much. 6 (including possibly 3 travel intensive) games removed from the middle of the campaign eases the load quite a bit. I don't think there will ever be a Super League, because when you take the largest and most successful clubs out of their current leagues, the television money for the lower leagues will dry up. And as history has demonstrated, once the TV money is gone, clubs fold. The public wouldn't stand for it either. It's great to see the best clubs in Europe go at it, but what about the local derbies? Can't imagine not watching Arsenal spank Spurs cause Spurs are stuck in the Premiership while Arsenal's in the SuperLeague.

 

Truth be told this is a no-win situation as International football cannot survive without domestic football and vice-versa. And surely a "Super League" will destroy domestic football by sucking away all top players and management and plummeting television ratings for what domestic football is televised. Many clubs far more than now will go under.
This will result in far fewer players having the opportunity to play football professionally and fewer players for European countries being developed to full international quality as well as simply fewer professionals to play in the "Super League" as time moves on. I apologize if my point isn't as clear as intended but the gist of it is a "Super League" will destroy both domestic and International football in Europe or at least set both back severely as I see it which is in no one's interest. There surely are compromises and BOTH sides, FIFA and the domestic clubs need to ssek them out...

 

The Super League is coming and AW knows it! Why do you think he is so set on Ashburton Grove? We couldn't exactly ground share Wembley, having given the FA and FIFA the finger (two fingers up in England!) and left the Premiership, could we?

My guess is, the likes of Abramovich, the Seikh trying to save Leeds and the blokes currently trying to buy ManUre have all seen the writing on the wall. A Super League will mean super bucks and a few hundred million quid might look like a cheap investment in a few years!

Americans are beginning to get into Soccer in a big way and the money men are starting to swarm round; especially with debts high and club values depressed. Murdoch's money created the premiership and it'll be him and a small group of major investors who dictate the long term future of the beautiful game. So get your phrase books out lads and start sharpening up your Esperanto!

 

AW wants Ashburton so he can actually buy players (what a novel thought!) and compete financially with ManU, Chelsea, and Liverpool. SuperLeague just ain't happening. There's too much history between the teams in European league football. Watching Arsenal play European clubs is nice, but there's no history between the two clubs, and rivalry can't be manufactured. Plus, supporters of teams that didn't make it in would revolt! The powers that be wouldn't dare alienate the supporters (and their dollars) of mid and lower level teams. I reiterate, the SuperLeague would sap massive amounts of TV revenue away from the castaway clubs and many would have to close down. That's how reliant they are on TV money.

 

Just imagine of Roma got in and Lazio didn't ... it'd be ugly, VERY ugly.

 

Perfect example

 

Olympique Marseille is an original member of the G-14, so they'd have to go along as well.

France has 3 by my count: OM, Lyon, PSG.

But that's neither here nore there. This won't happen.

Say these teams go it on their own. There will still be FA Cups played, and UEFA will still hold their Champions League tourney. The Prem might have to fold, but there will still be Division 1 football in England. Domestic football will be played, because there are plenty of players and supporters of clubs that want to compete. That's not even considering scope. We are only talking about a couple dozen teams. From a handful of countries. But UEFA has something like 50 member nations.

The flip-side will put these clubs off, too. When they all play each other, half of them have to have losing seasons! (Ho ho! Say it with me now, "Real Madrid - 4th bottom.") I don't care what the level of competition is, supporters like winners and that's what they pay to see. Each club is taking a risk of being rooted to the bottom of the table. And since there is no demotion, there is no incentive to revamp and rebuild. So you'd get to look forward to an abysmal season next year too! (See Montreal Expos of MLB, and the dynastic cycles of the NBA.) Bottom line, I'm sure the teams in France and Portugal aren't too keen about it.

 

I didn't read the article at the top of the thread, but I assume it is Blatter's pronouncement about 16 team leagues. Did he mention anywhere his intention of bringing back the world club championship in 2005 (possibly to be played in US)?

Club soccer wields the big stick right now and Blatter knows it. FIFA has to get a piece of that pie. As mentioned above, it's all about money.

I could very easily see a Super League, but you all forgot one team: The New York (team name heres). It would be a massive cash opportunity.

So, you've got a 16-20 team closed league (no promo/relegation). What does that mean for domestic football? Huge dropoff in TV money. Initially disaster, but water finds its own level and player salaries would drop. Also, clubs could sell players to Super League teams for HUGE sums.

FA Cups? Yeah, tradition means F all to the folks at ManU, etc. when a guaranteed $50 million is tossed there way.

What would be my feelings on this? Not being an Englishman I don't have the same feelings for the derbies and Cups. I'd be quite happy watching Friday night/weekend games against Real Madrid, Juventus, Ajax and Bayern Munich.

 

[QUOTEI'd be quite happy watching Friday night/weekend games against Real Madrid, Juventus, Ajax and Bayern Munich. [/B][/QUOTE]

It's called the Champions League

 

The FA stamped it's feet and sulked at the prospect of the Premiership. Football in England was in the doldrums. Just had a 5 year ban from Europe and no cash to compete with the big euro clubs anyway.

Like him or loathe him the shape and standard of the EPL is down to one man; Rupert Murdoch and his cash. If my recollection is right the big clubs presented a fait accompli to the League; either accept the EPL, with more cash going to the clubs, or go to hell! The League and FA didn't like it, but, they sucked it up and accomodated the clubs.
The same will happen when the Super League is put on the table. The League and FA won't like it, but, as Rick says, they don't have the power and will just have to adapt to the change.

BayouGooner! I think you are way off beam. There is a much bigger worldwide audience for a Super League and it is bums in front of TV's, not in stands, that generates the revenue that pays for football. The cash for playing in and winning the Prem is from BSkyB = Rupert Murdoch Satelite/cable subscriptions and ad revenue.

Look at the current scenario; ManUre and hopefully the Gunners are coming here to play in a 4 way tournemment worth $8mill. Obviously the prize money is a big incentive, but, that is not what is bringing ManUre stateside for the 2nd year running; especially on top of Euro 2004? They're coming for global branding and there are clear indications that the US market is opening up. Last year David Beckham came to NYC and he and posh didn't make it onto the radar. This year Real Madrid results are being reported in the NY Times and he gets his picture on the back pages of the Daily Post! The audience being cultivated don't want to see Leicester v Portsmouth!

Ad revenues for soccer were declining last year and Arsenal losing the EPL was exactly what the money men needed! If we'd carried on going the way we started viewers would've lost interest. Instead the ManUre match at Highbury had a worldwide audience only surpassed by the Olympics! The audience for the FA Cup pales in comparison. Big games mean big bucks and I think the forces for change will be unstoppable; for good or otherwise?

The Super League will not be a closed league. As has rightly been stated, people would lose interest if there is no real competition. So, the prospect of Real being relegated back to domestic football would be just as exciting as them being runaway winners!

 

But the real problem is the football leagues are interdependent on one another. These are SEPERATE INDEPENDENT clubs by and large and thus their survival is intertwined. This refers to the smaller clubs obviously. Without the inevitable loss of TV revenue followed by the loss of domestic interest in the clubs, their collapse is equally inevitable, which would create far less opportunities for young footballers to reach the professional level. And with the "Super" clubs buying up all the talent available afterwards the teams right below the "Super League" would also suffer hugely and even some of them would go under. The upshot is eventually there wouldn't be enough players, not of "Super League"(the "Super League" would just suck like the NBA does now compared to 20 years ago)but of world-class of "International" calibre which would undermine FIFA anyway. The upshot is both sides are proceeding at their own peril. I believe the Clubs are right on this one but not solely, which is to say the issue is the "Confederations Cup" or "Gold Cup" events and the friendlies. For Football's sake compromise need be reached and sooner rather than later...

 

Didn't know the 'Anti-Christ' had bought Direct TV! I think you are on the right lines about this coach. Martin - they made all those claims with the intro of the EPL and after the Boesman case. The lower leagues didn't crumble then and I don't think they would as a result of a Super League. There's a ceiling of interest in domestic/local football and that in and of itself limits grass roots potential.

Kids in Europe will not stop playing soccer just coz their local team is not in the ESL. Players will keep coming through; if for no other reason the academy system will ensure that?

 

I think the key is though that Football is structured differently from other sports-from the bottom up as much as the top down. Only Baseball in America has a similar structure and as the major league clubs own the vast majority of minor league clubs that is debatable. While there is a ceiling on local interest in smaller areas Football is designed so that does not matter as much. As for the Bosman ruling and the Premiership not destroying football as feared, fair enough, but not the same threats as a "Super League" would be to domestic football in Europe, and any threat to domestic football ultimately threatens international football. As for momentum for a "Super League", why eliminate one of the "Champions League" Group Phases? They weren't making money. That is not an absolute indictment of a "Super League" perhaps, but its pretty close...

 

A record number of clubs are bankrupt and/or in administration. The gulf between haves and have nots is wider than ever before. You don't think this doesn't have anything to do with the disparity between these clubs? A SuperLeague would just polarize and stratify things even more. You just can't keep adding layers and layers of competitions on top of what already exists, because the existing teams in the lower levels will collapse from the pressure of trying to compete with the top teir.
There's just not enough Al Fayeds and Abramovichs to go around.

 

You can add a tier if it creates a new global audience, which is totally possible in Murdoch's media empire! Most English clubs are in trouble because of the collapse of ITV Digital, which originally owned the rights to the Nationwide Leagues. It collapsed because the games were not generating enough ad revenue; same pattern on the continent. The global slow down in advertising on TV is likely to continue and looks set to push the "ball" further into Murdoch's subscription court!

It can equally be argued that an ESL could actually put more funds into domestic football by making it more competitive? Taking Arsenal, Chelski and ManUre (As great a club as they were I don't think Liverpool's EPL record justifys inclusion!) out of the equation could make the whole thing more open, and of more interest to supporters beyond the big 3 clubs!

Will all this be good for football? Don't know! Do I believe it is inevitable? Absolutely!!!

 

There is some basis in that certainly, Coach, but its Established that many "Champions League"(as opposed to European Cup-that begins for REAL next year) Do not come close to selling out or achieving desired ratings because the matches lack meaning(teams are through to knock-out play or eliminated from it already).
That is something "Super League" founders would have to count on, as what happens if FIFA says these clubs are banned from their domestic FAs and any players on these clubs are ineligible to represent their National Teams in World Cup play?
Some players would have no problem with that but some would balk I'm sure. What then a half-the World Cup for Super Leaguers only? Then the inevitable outcry for the two winners to meet? Yikes...and that's just one crisis...
I'll say this-for a "Super League" to succeed everyone must be on board from the smallest survivng Non-League clubs in each nation to their FAs to UEFA and to FIFA itself. I doubt that's doable right now...

 

I can definitely see a European league happening within the next ten years. The top clubs are getting more and more pissed off with their national associations and the smaller clubs. Just look at the TV rights arguments in Spain and Italy in the past couple of seasons. Just as the old First division clubs in England broke away and became the Premier League and the FA could do nothing about it, the top clubs in Europe could easily set up their own competition, there would be no shortage of backers. The top clubs couldn't care less about domestic competition (be it league or cup) if there's more money to be made elsewhere. And they certainly don't give a toss about the clubs further down the pyramid, I think they think of them as a quaint throwback to bygone days.

I would like to pick up on one or two points made:

While I agree that it is the TV money that's driving the game, it is important to have big crowds at games. Imagine watching a game on TV with no-one there. That would have people turning off games in double-quick time. Part of the excitment of watching a live match is that you know the crowd are there, you can hear them, see them, you wish you were there. You can't underestimate having supporters at the games.

How about going all traditional and calling them New York City? It sounds much better then the New York Soccerstars/Skywalkers/Tyrannosaurs or whatever.

 

michaec said:

While I agree that it is the TV money that's driving the game, it is important to have big crowds at games. Imagine watching a game on TV with no-one there. That would have people turning off games in double-quick time. Part of the excitment of watching a live match is that you know the crowd are there, you can hear them, see them, you wish you were there. You can't underestimate having supporters at the games.




Yes, you do need a crowd for the atmosphere. They will happily let people in for free if that's what the TV folks need. As stated, the TV money for this sort of thing would be so ridiculous that the live gate would be almost inconsequential.