No, they can't if the clubs decide to leave the FA's and UEFA and go their own way. In that case they have nothing to do with UEFA. However the fact is that these clubs can't survive on esl money alone as if that was the case, we wouldnot have seen this soap opera. So the poster claiming there's a financial basis for a Europe wide competition ignores the simple fact that that was the first incarnation of the esl, but they had to ditch it as being a financially mirage for the one in which they stay within UEFA. And there's no Europe wide interest in the matches. I for instance, and with me most Dutch, only watch the Dutch clubs in the UEFA competitions. I care shit about the other countries clubs, unless they play us. I think the last CL final I saw was that Bayern vs Liverpool in which Bayern shit the bed inthe last 5 minutes. I'm pretty sure that goes for most other countries.
I bet 90% of the fans on US based forums don't support teams that have been involved in a relegation battle. Relegation seasons are soul crushing. My team was relegated in 1984 1985 1992 1995 1997 2004 2015 and 2019 since I've been supporting them. Even most of the seasons in-between have been disappointing. If we weren't fighting relegation we were fighting financial disaster following relegation. Of course, the 6 promotion seasons in the last 44 years were fantastic and the two last ditch great escapes created memories which doused much of the dross that had gone on for the previous 9 months. But the British are natural pessimists. We go out in the rain, we queue quietly for hours to receive terrible service and we don't complain about bad food in restaurants. It's almost like we're accustomed to losing. I don't think the vast majority of Americans are cut out for that. They'll just go and watch Monster Truck Ice Wrestling instead. People will just lose interest if their teams lose year after year, with the exception of some diehards who's families have been supporting teams like the Cubs, the Red Sox or the New York Rangers for generations.
If the money truly wasn't there, then all those teams never would have originally committed to it. The only reason they bailed is because UEFA threatened them all and in fact imposed sanctions.
No. That is a cramped reading off what they said. If UEFA persists on punishing teams and abusing its monopoly position, even if they rwrite rules that allow them to do so, they will be in violation of EU law. The fact is, the court found that UEFA and FIFA engaged in monopolistic practices (which is obvious to anyone with eyes), and abused they position. We shall see where this leads.
FIFA and UEFA to a certain extent traditionally were a bunch of dictators in their practices. That is probably a good reason on why they always hated each other. I recall sitting at a pre-WC 1994 committee meeting and FIFA president João Havelange was threatening to take away the World Cup form the USA if they didn’t listen or adhere to his orders. I just remember what a jerk he was but don’t’ recall what the issue was. Something about what crowds could or couldn’t do during the tournament. I think both entities lost a lot of their power after the Bosman Ruling.
No, you're not understanding what I posted. I posted the very first idea was to go rogue all the way. It was supported by alot of humbug about invstors with billions ready. In the end it turned out impossible to go rogue in an independent esl. That's why they chose the version in which they stayed in the FA/UEFA, with the intention to skimm the money of the UEFA competitions for the 16 clubs involved. From that version, the parasite one, they bailed out after threats. A true esl has been looked in and found impossible.
Sorry, but I posted in a few threads the analysis of the verdict by professional legal commentators and they wrote it in the articles analysing it. Well, of course if UEFA persists in doing what the ECJ has condemned they will get slapped. UEFA however has said in reactions to the verdict they made changes to the rules in accordance to the verdict of the ECJ, meaning they have put in place conditions organizers of a competition like the esl have to commit to for such a competition to be permitted and a true, transparent proces for evaluating that proposal and an independent instance to appeal to. Of course the test of that being enough to cater to the verdict is in a case in which a proposal is submitted.
Quote from Platini on the Super League: "..‘Ceferin and Infantino only think about the power. Super League? I don’t know if it’s good, but it’s inevitable’
General Motors has $122.4 billion of debt but the shareholders don't seem worried. It's just business. The problems come when you don't manage the debt. For instance anticipating windfalls that don't come such as promotion, European qualification or player sales. Or just plain ignoring your tax bills.
All business to which wildly different rules and laws apply to. So again, what does that have to do with anything being discussed here
Because Gasperini is complaining about debt and debt isn't an issue if a business is well run. Debt is not addressed by FFP.
I don't think Klopp realizes the FA's are member organisations, which have to do what their members, the clubs, want them to do. So if he has a problem with certain things the English FA was doing, he should have sought support from the epl clubs to force the FA reconsider what they were doing.
95% of the members of the English Football Association didn't want to get rid of FA Cup replays so the top 5 teams could make more money in Europe.
So it wasnot FA/UEFA, but fellow clubs that pushed things he opposed. So it wasnot FA/UEFA, but his (and his fellow) superclub(s) who wanted more Euro matches on top of what they already had to play.
I didn't watch the interview. Clubs say "we want more money". UEFA says "fine but it'll mean more games". Clubs say "fine but we'll need fewer domestic cup games, everyone else can FO!". Similar to MLS and the Leagues/Open Cup situation I guess. My point being, the big clubs have the power in most federations, not the grass roots clubs.
The alternative is to only control the amateur part of the sport. The feds don't seem to like that possibility.
Of course it is. The whole ostensible point of FFP was to keep clubs from spending money they have or couldn't sustain in order to prevent them from going bankrupt. Inter just defaulted on nearly 400 million of debt and were taken over by their lenders. That is essentially bankruptcy for the club and it gave them huge sporting advantages. If FFP isn't concerned with that, what is its point?
Anyhoo...Exhibit 3463 on why a Euro Super League of some sort is inevitable: https://www.insidehook.com/sports/ligue-1-broadcast-rights-psg
This could result in MLS having higher revenue than Ligue 1, admittedly with fewer teams. According to Wikipedia, league revenue was Ligue 1 €2,378 (2022/23) MLS €1,849 (2023) But some of the Ligue 1 revenue is split with Ligue 2.