kinda interesting - surprise players of the season, team by team. Warning: Do not hold any kind of hot drink near your face when reading the Man Utd section Twenty unexpected stars of the season in the Premier League https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...apr/17/unexpected-stars-season-premier-league
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/apr/18/premier-league-riches-money-breakdown Points mean prizes. And money. Lots and lots of money. Only one trophy is handed out at the conclusion of the Premier League season, meaning the most tangible reward most teams are playing for over the final few weeks of the campaign is a bigger check. Last season, each Premier League team received anywhere between £175.9m and £109.7m for their participation in the self-styled Greatest League in the World. These payouts take into account everything from league position, the number of matches broadcast on TV and commercial revenue among other factors. The numbers for the 2024-25 season won’t be released until after the end of the campaign, but last season provides an idea of what Premier League teams can expect to receive. Here’s a breakdown that doesn’t account for club-specific factors such as gate receipts, transfers and sponsorship deals. The winners Money won’t be at the forefront of Arne Slot and his players’ minds when Liverpool are confirmed as Premier League champions, but Fenway Sports Group (FSG) could be forgiven for counting their notes. Last season, Manchester City collected £56.4m in pure prize money (something called “merit payments”), meaning Liverpool can expect to receive a similar payout. On top of this, City were handed £86.9m in equal share payments from domestic and international broadcast rights. A further £24.4m was added to Manchester City’s pile of broadcast cash based on the number of matches they had broadcast in the UK over the course of the season (the Premier League labels this “facility fees”). A £8.2m share of the league’s central commercial revenue streams brought City’s total payout to £175.9m, the most of any team in the division. Winning the title also brings access to the following season’s Champions League with qualification worth £15.7m before £1.8m for each League Phase win is factored into the equation. The Champions League contingent If you ain’t first, you’re last, as Ricky Bobby famously said. Unless if you finish in the Champions League places (first to fourth, sometimes fifth depending on Uefa’s coefficient rankings) in the Premier League table, in which case you’re still very well remunerated. In fact, Arsenal received more in so-called “facility fees” than Manchester City last season - £26.9m compared to £24.4m. Factoring in prize money, equal share payments and a cut of the league’s central commercial revenue, the Gunners made just £0.4m less (£175.5m in total) than the champions. Third-place Liverpool (£25.2m) also took more in “facility fees” than City, collecting £171m in total, with the final Champions League qualifier, Aston Villa, raking in £162.4m from the Premier League. This, of course, is before any European money is factored into the equation; Villa’s run in this season’s Champions League has been worth an estimated £40m to them. These are the sort of riches Nottingham Forest are chasing. Nuno Espirito Santo’s team were fighting relegation last season, but have since risen into Champions League contention. Having taken £123.3m from a 17th place finish in 2023-24, Forest stand to earn £40m to £60m more by making their place in the top five stick. The European other guys Tottenham Hotspur’s fifth-place finish in 2023-24 was enough to qualify for this season’s Europa League, and enough to collect £164.4m in total payments from the Premier League, which was interestingly more than Aston Villa’s £162.4m despite Unai Emery’s team reaching the Champions League. This was down to Spurs earning £5m more in “facility fees”, meaning they had more games broadcast on domestic TV. Despite finishing eighth in the Premier League, Manchester United qualified for the Europa League by beating Manchester City in the FA Cup final. This was worth £3.6m to the Old Trafford club, but still wasn’t enough to make up for the financial shortfall of a disappointing league campaign, although United still collected £156.2m in total. Chelsea, who rallied late under Mauricio Pochettino to finish sixth and make the Conference League, took £159.2m while Newcastle United, who finished ahead of Manchester United but missed out on Europe altogether, earned £154.7m. The difference between Spurs in fifth and Manchester United in eighth amounted to just £8.4m in payments from the Premier League. As things stand, this is the realm Chelsea, Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Fulham and Brighton fall into with as many as eight different teams jostling for Champions League, Europa League and Conference League qualification. The difference between just a few places in the table can be significant. The middlers Mid-table mediocrity is worth a lot in the Premier League, as it turns out. Indeed, a ninth-place finish for West Ham last season earned the London Stadium outfit £147.4m with Crystal Palace rewarded to the tune of £139.6m for finishing smack bang in the middle of the table (once again, the primary differentiator was “facility fees” where West Ham collected £5m more). From Brighton in 11th place to Wolves in 14th place, Premier League clubs collected anywhere between £136.8m to £130m. For context, Real Madrid received just €53.3m for winning the La Liga title last season, highlighting the financial might of the Premier League’s mid-tier. This is how a club like Bournemouth (average attendance: 11,000) can spend £40m on a player like Evanilson. This season, the usual mid-table equation could be disrupted by the presence of Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur, both of whom have endured historically bad campaigns. As “big” clubs, they should expect to earn a lot more than the teams around them (Brentford, Palace, Everton, etc) in “facility fees”. The relegation fodder Southampton, Leicester City and Ipswich Town have had a long time to brace for the impact of relegation. However, the blow will be softened by the amount of money they will receive for just one season in the Premier League. Between this and three years of parachute payments, there’s plenty in the trust fund. Last season, Sheffield United received £109.7m for finishing bottom. Burnley took £110.1m while Luton Town collected £115.4m. Everton, who finished 15th after flirting with relegation for much of the season, were handed £20.2m in “facility fees” which was more than any of the six teams above them in the table up to Manchester United. Their struggles made for good TV.
The difference between the top 4-5 spots isn't that much. There are other benefits too like the clubs other interests from being champions - many many commercial deals have bonus payments for us being title winners because the exposure value for the sponsors goes up too. but then so do our bonus payments to our players. but then so does our attractiveness to players. At the end of the day - probably one of the most important things that comes from it is simply: "Liverpool are Champions for the 20th time".
Interesting, just interesting, don’t want a DEI charge shoved on the forum. Anyway, women’s football. London City Lionesses won promotion to the women’s PL. They are the first club in the WPL that’s not affiliated with any men’s club. Not particularly earth shattering, just interesting.
I swear I did not pay him to suggest this...... https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cvgngqen0jgo but, yes, please!!!
I got no problem with that. But you WILL still get decisions made on the basis of the location of a toenail or armpit hair.
another idea that needs to die a quick and violent death .... https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ming-interviews-half-time-substituted-players The Premier League has asked clubs to give broadcasters the right to film inside dressing rooms or conduct in-game player interviews during live coverage from next season. A new domestic TV deal worth £6.7bn over four years begins in August and Sky Sports and TNT Sports want more for their money, with the league supporting their demands. The league is understood to be consulting with clubs over enhanced access for rights holders and wants an agreement before its AGM next month. Some clubs are more open to allowing broadcasters to film in their dressing rooms, with certain managers resistant to letting cameras into what they regard as their inner sanctum. The traditional Big Six are believed to be pushing back. There is a suspicion at some clubs that the Big Six are resisting because they want to save behind-the-scenes content for their own channels, which they can use to market to their fans and increase their already significant commercial advantage. The league needs 14 clubs to take its side if it is to make a contractual commitment to the broadcasters. Under the league’s proposals each club would be obliged to allow dressing-room access, a half-time player interview or an interview with a substituted player at two home games. The broadcasters are most interested in dressing-room footage but the other options have been included as a concession to win over the most reluctant clubs. The league is understood to have warned clubs that without offering broadcasters more access the value of future TV rights deals is likely to decline. Although the value of the league’s TV deal has gone up for the next cycle, this has been achieved only by offering 70 more live games each season. The price per game paid by Sky and TNT has decreased significantly from £10.19m between 2016-17 and 2018-19 to £6.2m over the next four-year cycle. Overseas TV rights are continuing to rise, with the league’s contracts between 2025 and 2028 worth £6.5bn, but foreign rights holders are also demanding more, particularly NBC in the United States. Several clubs including Brentford, Brighton, Wolves and Nottingham Forest have run trials with cameras in their dressing rooms over the past couple of years. The Premier League champions are obliged to allow crews to film celebrations in their dressing rooms after winning the trophy. Bournemouth were the first club to offer a substituted player interview, with Marcus Tavernier speaking to Sky Sports after he was taken off in their 3-1 win over Southampton last October, and an audio clip of Thomas Frank giving a pre-match team talk before Brentford hosted Arsenal in January went viral after being posted by TNT Sports. Sky Sports will broadcast a minimum of 215 live Premier League games next season, up from 128, and believes it has to offer viewers more for their subscription. Next season in the Premier League camera crews will be allowed on to the pitch to film goal celebrations. Camera operatives using so-called Steadicams, who often enter the field at the final whistle, will be allowed to record players’ reactions to take viewers closer to the action.
He's getting a lot of crap for this. And I get it, it would drastically change the game. Gimme a law like this (and can actually be accomplished thanks to technology at the highest levels): The attacker may be up to 12 inches in front of the second to last defender and be considered onside. Gives nice leeway and fits the spirit of the law while not completely changing the interpretation.
Solutions in search of problems... They just want to hire more announcers and correspondents. But if they listened to fans they'd understand that we want less of this, not more.
good for you, UEFA .... Uefa accused Gianni Infantino of prioritising "private political interests" after Fifa's president turned up late for the world governing body's own congress in Paraguay. Infantino has been on a diplomatic tour of the Middle East alongside United States President Donald Trump and arrived two hours and 17 minutes past the scheduled 10:30 start time (14:30 BST) for the Fifa event. Infantino said his trip prior to the congress had been crucial as it allowed him "to represent football" in "important discussions" with "world leaders in politics and economy". In protest at the 55-year-old Swiss-Italian's delayed arrival, Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin led a group of European delegates, joined by Football Association chair Debbie Hewitt, in staging a walk-out during a break at the event. It meant there were clearly empty seats at the Conmebol Convention Center in Luque, on the outskirts of the Paraguayan capital of Asuncion, when the meeting resumed. Uefa said in a statement the "last-minute changes" to the timings were "deeply regrettable" but "a point" had to be made. "The Fifa congress is one of the most important meetings in world football, where all the 211 nations in the world's game gather to discuss issues that affect the sport right across the world," said European football's governing body. "To have the timetable changed at the last minute for what appears to be simply to accommodate private political interests, does the game no service and appears to put its interests second. "We are all in post to serve football, from the streets to the podium, and Uefa members of the Fifa council felt the need on this occasion to make a point that the game comes first and to leave as originally scheduled."
My fear is it could eliminate the offside trap. If an attacker can be goal side and still onside then trying to play them offsides becomes even riskier. Defenders might respond by dropping deeper which could cause more teams to play mid low block rather than a high line.
I've thought about this, off and on, since my playing days in the 80's I know it's a big "change" but what would happen, realistically, if they abolished off side all together? Yes, you'd have "poachers" hanging around the goal or behind the last defender, but so what? That would most likely lead to more goals (which of course, would "change the game") but in the 80's that was a major consideration: how can we make the game more exciting, more high scoring? - There was even talk of making the goal bigger! So, what would taking out the off side rule do to the game? I'm sure I'll get some snide comments and eye rolls, but I'm interested to know people's thoughts...
It's an idea I have heard too especially from this side of the pond. I think it would make the game much more sedentary at least for the players. The entire game would be holding your defensive shape even while in possession. And the first instinct would be to hoof it long as soon as you got a turnover. I imagine the game would start to look more like Gaelic or Aussie rules football. Or it creates tons of space in the middle of the pitch and livens up the game not sure which. But either way I actually think the games in a good spot in terms of style of play. At the moment I wouldn't recommend any major rule changes, just would ask for a little more consistency in terms of VAR.
As I keep trying to stress on this idea - it's not about the decision and the necessity of its exactitude. Exactitude of measurement is what's causing the problem. It's more about the aesthetics (for want of a better term) of the relationship between the spectator and what they are observing. Once the mind is more pre-prepared for a problem, the problem is the easier accepted. It's just human nature. At that point, I think, nobody will mind the measurement, because it is at that stage measuring some kind of actual advantage gained. A body torso distance. A recognizable thing.
That would be crazy. Teams couldn't even advance as a unit for fear of losing the ball. Offside is a great rule IMO - but it should be focused on a practical advantage not on some pedantry of measuring specifications, that even then they can;t seem to get right (Diaz/Spurs and the PSG game tie-ing goal.... Wouldn;t want VAR people running air-traffic contrrol or a nuclear plant....
The most consistent calls for the scrapping of the offside rule comes (or used to come) from American TV networks. Sometimes this needs to be said out loud, but the reason for this is that the casual US viewer is simply too thick, dumb, stupid, what have you, to understand something so complex. I’m being serious unfortunately. I think I’ve mentioned it before here, but I was peripherally involved with the WC in 1994. ABC and ESPN had the network and cable rights. I was involved in a few conversations/meetings with ESPN upper echelon types who had pretty much decided that as they had spent eleventy bazillion on the rights, that the games were in ‘Murica, they were going to demand, yes, demand that FIFA suspend the offside rule for the WC or at the very least for those games they televised to make the game easier to explain to casual/Mom viewer. Make of that what you will.
But how do you feel about AI running them? It's coming - the controllers strike in Newark is evidence enough.
I've said many times before, this is not a reliable measurement of "gaining an advantage". All depends who is running (or not) in which direction at the time. A striker could be 2 yards onside and gain a huge advantage if the defender is caught flat footed. Similarly, a flatfooted striker could be two yards offside and gain no advantage if the defender has read the situation well.