New Euro Super league to be announced Sunday

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,287
For Spain, yup, it's been Real/Barca/Atletico + one of Valencia/Sevilla/Villareal every one of those years.
And just as a testament to how things churn over the decades, Villarreal never played in La Liga until the 1998-99 season. They were immediately relegated, while in the following season "Super Depor" Deportivo La Coruña won La Liga and finished in the top three in each of the next four seasons. Deportivo La Coruña are now in the third division (Segunda B).
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,790
Washington, DC
And just as a testament to how things churn over the decades, Villarreal never played in La Liga until the 1998-99 season. They were immediately relegated, while in the following season "Super Depor" Deportivo La Coruña won La Liga and finished in the top three in each of the next four seasons. Deportivo La Coruña are now in the third division (Segunda B).
They left their wallet in La Segunda /tribe
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,857
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
The idea was for the Big Six to remain in the PL. But ... I think the experience of watching Liverpool/Leeds and Chelsea/Brighton kind of drove home the point for me. If the Super League was a thing (and it seemed it might be at that time) there was no rooting interest from a Liverpool (or Chelsea’) fans perspective. It didn’t matter. There would have been nothing to play for .. an entire EPL season would come and go and it would be nothing but friendlies. Sure, maybe a title challenge if the cards broke right every ten years .. but other than that ? If I feel that way watching games from 1000s of miles away how would the supporters feel that had to pony up 80 quid to attend a tarted up friendly?

The effect on the PL’s global appeal would be massive.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,223
Philadelphia
For Spain, yup, it's been Real/Barca/Atletico + one of Valencia/Sevilla/Villareal every one of those years.

I don't doubt it's a tough business for teams on the bubble. My friend took over as President of Valencia in 2017 and even though the new ownership brought in Champions' League success in his first two years (2017-2018, 2018-2019), a blip last year where they fell to 9th already had fans upset and made finances difficult. But Real/Barca really didn't need to enshrine their permanent position when it would have been a de facto permanent position.
That's awesome that you know the president of Valencia! They have a great history and its sad that clubs like that can only really even aspire to the bubble these days when only 15-20 years ago they won La Liga twice and also made two Champions League finals in a row.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,192
Falmouth
The idea was for the Big Six to remain in the PL. But ... I think the experience of watching Liverpool/Leeds and Chelsea/Brighton kind of drove home the point for me. If the Super League was a thing (and it seemed it might be at that time) there was no rooting interest from a Liverpool (or Chelsea’) fans perspective. It didn’t matter. There would have been nothing to play for .. an entire EPL season would come and go and it would be nothing but friendlies. Sure, maybe a title challenge if the cards broke right every ten years .. but other than that ? If I feel that way watching games from 1000s of miles away how would the supporters feel that had to pony up 80 quid to attend a tarted up friendly?

The effect on the PL’s global appeal would be massive.
The local supporters, who were being squeezed with £80 tickets because their owners care more about the global market than them, would stop supporting the club that treated 38 games as friendlies so that the profits margins went up.

Billionaires shitting all over history, culture, and community to maximize profits should disgust everyone.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,996
The idea was for the Big Six to remain in the PL. But ... I think the experience of watching Liverpool/Leeds and Chelsea/Brighton kind of drove home the point for me. If the Super League was a thing (and it seemed it might be at that time) there was no rooting interest from a Liverpool (or Chelsea’) fans perspective. It didn’t matter. There would have been nothing to play for .. an entire EPL season would come and go and it would be nothing but friendlies. Sure, maybe a title challenge if the cards broke right every ten years .. but other than that ? If I feel that way watching games from 1000s of miles away how would the supporters feel that had to pony up 80 quid to attend a tarted up friendly?

The effect on the PL’s global appeal would be massive.
Frankly I continue to find this perspective bizarre. Champions League qualification based on non-champion league place only started in 1993; before that, only the actual league champions qualified for the European Cup (and many traditionalists still want to go back to this format). Did people have no rooting interest in most games before 1993? And the first division used to have more teams -- the first PL season had 22 clubs, which of course meant more clubs outside both relegation danger and the title hunt. The football league existed from 1888-1955 without any European competition at all -- why did anyone bother watching all those decades' worth of dead rubber friendlies with no European qualification to play for?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,101
Dunno. Since the underlying premise is so antithetical to football culture I really don't think you could have.

Polishing a turd only goes so far. Most will still be able to detect essence du turd.
seems to me that if a bunch of guys on a Red Sox message board could figure out better ways to attack the problem, getting some PR firm to do it wouldn't have been more difficult.

Plus, what the ESL was really trying to do is replace the Champions League to cut out the middle organization. That's not antithetical to football culture. It was just spun this way by - as described by some guy named Mike Ryan (covers Chelsea?) a master class in PR by UEFA together with FIFA.
 

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,287
Frankly I continue to find this perspective bizarre. Champions League qualification based on non-champion league place only started in 1993; before that, only the actual league champions qualified for the European Cup (and many traditionalists still want to go back to this format). Did people have no rooting interest in most games before 1993? And the first division used to have more teams -- the first PL season had 22 clubs, which of course meant more clubs outside both relegation danger and the title hunt. The football league existed from 1888-1955 without any European competition at all -- why did anyone bother watching all those decades' worth of dead rubber friendlies with no European qualification to play for?
Watching your local team play in person was the only way to watch soccer. For most of that period, there was no soccer on television. Until the 90s soccer on TV was fairly limited.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
20,509
The 718
seems to me that if a bunch of guys on a Red Sox message board could figure out better ways to attack the problem, getting some PR firm to do it wouldn't have been more difficult.

Plus, what the ESL was really trying to do is replace the Champions League to cut out the middle organization. That's not antithetical to football culture. It was just spun this way by - as described by some guy named Mike Ryan (covers Chelsea?) a master class in PR by UEFA together with FIFA.
Two things made it irredeemable no matter the strength of the messaging:

1. No promotion/relegation. Anathema to the football culture. Closed shop reeks of American NFL franchise model, a common criticism from what I've seen.
2. Influence of unpopular owners who are widely disliked for tone deafness to fan concerns and sucking the money out of clubs - Glazers, Henry, Kroenke, etc.

No way of hiding these.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,101
Two things made it irredeemable no matter the strength of the messaging:

1. No promotion/relegation. Anathema to the football culture. Closed shop reeks of American NFL franchise model, a common criticism from what I've seen.
2. Influence of unpopular owners who are widely disliked for tone deafness to fan concerns and sucking the money out of clubs - Glazers, Henry, Kroenke, etc.

No way of hiding these.
Well as mentioned upthread or the other thread, they could have figured out ways around that. For example, saying that the top 7 of the EPL would qualify might have changed the look rather than the substance.

In addition, they needed to get player buy-in. They needed some way to message that players would be making more. Bonuses, cut of the TV revenues, something that would indicate to players that they would be getting a cut of the pie. Same with the national leagues.

In my mind, they tried to do way too much too soon - probably because they didn't bother to hire a good communications team. I don't know enough about soccer but even just banding together to sell merchandise on the same platform might have been a step they could take without making waves. I don't know if it's possible for the teams to band together and try to sell "friendlies" among the teams on a streaming platform.

They needed to take several small steps to their goal instead of thinking that no one was paying attention due to CV. CV has had the opposite effect on everything IMO - people have more time to focus on things so when they get outraged, everything is intensified.

Finally, as I said upthread, these clubs need revenue certainty so IMO it's almost certainly going to happen in the next decade or so. There's too much money involved to have teams' revenues go up or down by hundreds of millions of dollars just because of fluke injuries or poor player performance.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,705
At the moment, this kind of UEFA threat of “consequences” sounds like saber rattling to me, but the detail that popped is that UEFA’s president is godfather to Angelli’s daughter. For all the appeals to what the fans want, this is much more like the European royalty jockeying for prominence despite being related are every turn.

edit: was just trying to decide which of the 12 owners would be most likely to recite the classic Game of Thrones speech, “Chaos is a Ladder.” I feel like it’s John Henry, but it would be delivered in that flat, graceless tone that wouldn’t betray the deep giddiness he actually feels in the moment.
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
44,376
‘It was like shouting into a hurricane’: how the Super League crashed | European Super League | The Guardian

So what did go wrong? The seeds of the downfall came early, when the story broke in the New York Times and the Times at lunchtime on Sunday. That surprised the breakaway 12 clubs, who were leaden-footed and failed to make an official announcement until late that evening. “It went from: ‘Is this coming?’ to: ‘Shit it’s on, it’s happening,’ very quickly,” says one source. “But for hours and hours there was no official statement. And so the Super League’s enemies were allowed to pile in. No one was putting the positive case.”
Although City and Chelsea quit first, it is understood there was a point during the afternoon when all parties realized in unison that the game was up. While they announced their decisions at different times, they did not do so as a reaction to one another. The later announcements by Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Spurs came after those clubs had decided on the precise nature of their statements and tied up other loose ends.
Meanwhile some involved in the Super League now admit their actions have changed football – only not as they intended. “Uefa’s hand is massively strengthened,” said one. “I believe we are talking about a generation before something like this is tried again.”
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,557
Chelmsford, MA
This statement from the Milan supporters group Curva Sud is really good.

View: https://twitter.com/Mr78Christopher/status/1384801535289331712
Presumably football still belonged to the fans when Berlusconi saved them and bought and bunch of stars.

And football probably belonged to the fans when Inter, Juve, and Lazio used to outspend everyone in the late 80s and 90s.

Football maybe did literally belong to some fans when they were match fixing Serie A.

It’s not that I don’t agree with the sentiment. And continuing to make the same mistake because you have always made it is dumb. But many of the arguments made are convenient to the latest problems. Money has driven the sport for the entirety of my lifetime

edit: this reads almost snarky toward you MMS and that’s not my intent at all. It is a good thought provoking statement
 
Last edited:

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,223
Philadelphia
Presumably football still belonged to the fans when Berlusconi saved them and bought and bunch of stars.

And football probably belonged to the fans when Inter, Juve, and Lazio used to outspend everyone in the late 80s and 90s.

Football maybe did literally belong to some fans when they were match fixing Serie A.

It’s not that I don’t agree with the sentiment. And continuing to make the same mistake because you have always made it is dumb. But many of the arguments made are convenient to the latest problems. Money has driven the sport for the entirety of my lifetime
I think their exact point is that money has driven the sport for entirely too long. And also that the pattern has had a cumulative effect, such that the "latest problems" really are the most severe problems. Football is worse for the average supporter now than it has been at any time in your or my lifetime - more expensive to attend, with greater inequalities within and between leagues, and consequently with leagues less competitive in aggregate and fewer clubs able to win domestic or international honors overall - so it is particularly galling to see the people who have presided over that trend then try to claim to be looking out for the interests of the average supporter.
 

bosox4283

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 2, 2004
4,181
Philadelphia

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,790
Washington, DC
I think their exact point is that money has driven the sport for entirely too long. And also that the pattern has had a cumulative effect, such that the "latest problems" really are the most severe problems. Football is worse for the average supporter now than it has been at any time in your or my lifetime - more expensive to attend, with greater inequalities within and between leagues, and consequently with leagues less competitive in aggregate and fewer clubs able to win domestic or international honors overall - so it is particularly galling to see the people who have presided over that trend then try to claim to be looking out for the interests of the average supporter.
It is indeed galling to see the leaders claim to be looking out for the interests of the average fan. But are things really worse for the average supporter, though, as opposed to the average local supporter? I remember growing up in Singapore in the 1980s as an Everton supporter, only being able to catch occasional games on the telly, and then coming to America in the 1990s and having to go to the Plough and Stars to watch Premier League games. Now I can watch more Everton games each season here in the US, and my friends back in Singapore can stay up past midnight on weekends to catch every game. That to me is a great improvement. The game has grown internationally tremendously and consequently there's more money flowing into it, and that part of the supporters' group message about super agents asking for astronomical figures for their players that *have* to be supported by TV rights strikes me as getting the causality the wrong way around. There's huge demand to watch the best players play soccer, and I'd like that money to go to the players more than the owners.

As for leagues being less competitive in aggregate and fewer clubs able to win domestic honors - I mean, I don't like the current state but I also recognize that the 1980s English league was Liverpool/Everton dominated and that Barca/Real won every La Liga title from 1985-1995 and AC/Juventus won every Serie A title from 1991-1999. And if that's too recent, looking at the first ever Serie A titles shows a domination by Juventus, Inter, and Bologna, who together took the first 12 ever titles. I do think the Premier League has gotten much less open than the early 1990s, but I don't know about the other European leagues, where dominance by a few teams seems to be a pattern.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
23,101
What a disaster. That Barcelona is so eager to go along with a failed league with Real Madrid reveals a level of desperation I did not expect. Even Atletico was not that desperate to hang around once the other teams bailed.

My raw theory is that La Liga's utter incompetence is a microcosm (albeit a large one) of Spain's larger political disfunction.
Barca's finances don't look so good to this untrained eye.
 

Section30

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2010
1,090
Portland OR
In the early 1980's I would go to the local soccer goods store where the owner would get week old video tapes of the Bundesliga games that he would convert from European video to American standards. We would try to learn techniques from watching those games as the coaching was almost non-existent where I grew up.

They would leave in the commercials which were usually pretty good.

How many teams will have to take a step back and reorganize how their clubs are being run now that the extra money won't be bailing them out?

Barca, Real Madrid, Tottenham? Maybe Man U. any others in real difficulty?
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,857
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Frankly I continue to find this perspective bizarre. Champions League qualification based on non-champion league place only started in 1993; before that, only the actual league champions qualified for the European Cup (and many traditionalists still want to go back to this format). Did people have no rooting interest in most games before 1993? And the first division used to have more teams -- the first PL season had 22 clubs, which of course meant more clubs outside both relegation danger and the title hunt. The football league existed from 1888-1955 without any European competition at all -- why did anyone bother watching all those decades' worth of dead rubber friendlies with no European qualification to play for?
It’s not bizarre if you are raised in North American sports culture. Yes - the leagues are sealed but they have playoffs which guarantees fan interest.

On the other hand I’m old enough to remember baseball without playoffs. I don’t count the WS as that was always viewed as the cherry on top. Winning the pennant was the goal.

Started watching euro soccer in the 70s (soccer made in Germany comes to mind) but nothing serious until we could see Premier League games on a steady basis (mid aughts) So I was conditioned with the goal being the Top Four. It would take some doing to revert to a model that you are suggesting.
 

Tangled Up In Red

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2004
3,495
Bernal
Started watching euro soccer in the 70s (soccer made in Germany comes to mind) but nothing serious until we could see Premier League games on a steady basis (mid aughts) So I was conditioned with the goal being the Top Four. It would take some doing to revert to a model that you are suggesting.
Pretty similar, tbh. I mean, I'd rather Spurs finish top 4 every season than win the PL and miss out for multiple seasons. I guess that's kinda the problem.
Then again, since 2004, I'd rather the Sox make (or threaten to) the post-season than win a title and suck for seasons on end. So maybe it's me?
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,223
Philadelphia
It is indeed galling to see the leaders claim to be looking out for the interests of the average fan. But are things really worse for the average supporter, though, as opposed to the average local supporter? I remember growing up in Singapore in the 1980s as an Everton supporter, only being able to catch occasional games on the telly, and then coming to America in the 1990s and having to go to the Plough and Stars to watch Premier League games. Now I can watch more Everton games each season here in the US, and my friends back in Singapore can stay up past midnight on weekends to catch every game. That to me is a great improvement. The game has grown internationally tremendously and consequently there's more money flowing into it, and that part of the supporters' group message about super agents asking for astronomical figures for their players that *have* to be supported by TV rights strikes me as getting the causality the wrong way around. There's huge demand to watch the best players play soccer, and I'd like that money to go to the players more than the owners.
Oh, I completely agree that access to the game has expanded tremendously for the international supporter and I personally greatly enjoy benefitting from that. My post probably should have been specified more clearly, but I had the domestic supporter in mind, both because that is who the Milan supporter group that kicked off the discussion represents and also because its really the domestic supporter that the powers-that-be are pretending to care about after undermining for so long.

As for leagues being less competitive in aggregate and fewer clubs able to win domestic honors - I mean, I don't like the current state but I also recognize that the 1980s English league was Liverpool/Everton dominated and that Barca/Real won every La Liga title from 1985-1995 and AC/Juventus won every Serie A title from 1991-1999. And if that's too recent, looking at the first ever Serie A titles shows a domination by Juventus, Inter, and Bologna, who together took the first 12 ever titles. I do think the Premier League has gotten much less open than the early 1990s, but I don't know about the other European leagues, where dominance by a few teams seems to be a pattern.
I made a pretty extensive post in the other thread on this topic that I'll link. There have always been big clubs in every league but, overall, I think its pretty clear that there has been a lot less competition and fewer teams capable of winning the title in the last decade in France, Germany, and Italy, as well as the major European cups, when compared to earlier periods. And even in England, supposedly the most competitive league, I'm not sure there is any more real competition at the top today than there was in earlier eras of the Premier League (despite United's dominant run) or prior eras.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
9,790
Washington, DC
The ESL was trying to fix a few different, distinct financial problems for the big clubs in one go:
  1. Revenue non-maximization: TV rights were not selling for amounts commensurate to the popularity of the game because UEFA didn't negotiate them well; limited number of guaranteed CL games wasn't maximizing the revenue potential
  2. Revenue distribution: Too much revenue was leaking to other clubs via UEFA
  3. Revenue uncertainty: Failure to qualify for the Champions League or in some cases even failure to qualify for the knockout stages created revenue uncertainty for the clubs.
  4. Cost increases: Rising player wages and player acquisition costs (transfer fees etc.). Linked to #3 in that even clubs in over their head financially felt they had to spend to qualify for the CL.
I think seeing all 4 as one problem and trying to take them on all at once was the downfall of the idea. They might have been able to fix revenue non-maximization and revenue distribution and indeed I would think that was the real biggest issue for the clubs. But they were so obsessed with revenue uncertainty that they "fixed" it in the ESL proposal by not having relegation, which took away fan support, instead of having a bit more faith in their teams' ability to stay near the top and recognizing that promotion/relegation is very much integral to the European football brand. They alluded to cost increases, which led to players being suspicious that American-style restrictions on spending might eventually be part of the ESL, instead of emphasizing the bigger pie.
 
Last edited:

rguilmar

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
302
I think seeing all 4 as one problem and trying to take them on all at once was the downfall of the idea. They might have been able to fix revenue non-maximization and revenue distribution and indeed I would think that was the real biggest issue for the clubs. But they were so obsessed with revenue uncertainty that they "fixed" it in the ESL proposal by not having relegation, which took away fan support, instead of having a bit more faith in their teams' ability to stay near the top and recognizing that promotion/relegation is very much integral to the European football brand. They alluded to cost increases, which led to players being suspicious that American-style restrictions on spending might eventually be part of the ESL, instead of emphasizing the bigger pie.
I think you're right. To me it was just such a short sighted, arrogant attempt to create a more predictable revenue stream for several reasons:

1. All clubs, not just big clubs, were hit hard by the pandemic. This attitude of "fixing" revenue to make it more predictable implies that only big clubs need predictable revenue. The biggest clubs will be hit harder, but are also better positioned to recover short term than the rest. Lille might very well win Ligue 1 and fall into financial ruin. I think Depor was mentioned a few times in this thread, and that is the plight for many second tier teams. They were La Liga champions and Champions League semifinalists. A few years later, relegation to La Segunda where they fell just short of bouncing back up. They failed and are now in the third tier. The margins for these teams are so much smaller. If you want fixed, predictable income, don't by a soccer team.
2. Champions League places add so much entertainment to the leagues. Serie A is likely done and dusted with Inter so far ahead, but places 2-6/7 are incredibly interesting. Otherwise we would just be watching the relegation battle. Not to mention that several of the founding fathers of the ESL are involved in these battles- PSG, Juve, several EPL teams, Milan. A few will end up on the outside looking in. For many teams, these qualifying spots are the goal for the season. Again, looking at Serie A, Napoli, Roma, Lazio, and Atalanta would put UCL qualification as the domestic goal. Most if not all fans are likely to revolt against any system that removes this.
3. The lack of relegation for teams that do not feature in UCL currently is almost laughable (looking at you AC Milan and Arsenal -two times I like to root for) and it does not allow for future changes. Chelsea had history pre-Abramovich, but not like this. Man City had even less pre-Sheik, PSG did not even exist before 1970 and only recently joined the elite. Who would've predicted the rise of these teams twenty years ago?

I also am in the crowd that saw the ESL as a first step to a new type of European football, completely removed from the national leagues. I saw the next logical step as a secondary tier where teams played for the rights to be promoted to the few available ESL slots (let's call it the EL), maybe a third tier below that, with the goal that the European nation's league to be a feeder leagues to this new European system more akin to the provision leagues in most countries.

I do wonder if the immediate and severe reaction will actually slow the drive towards an ESL type of format. A lot of posters both here and elsewhere have implied that it will happen at some point. I'm not so sure that teams will be inclined to try even a well-thought out plan (which this was not) in the future. It was the fans of the teams that stood to actually benefit the most who had such vocal displays against the ESL.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
7,947
ESPN is reporting that the 12 ESL clubs are looking at a two year Champions League ban. Should we just mark a PSG-Bayern final on the calendar now?

The TV networks must love this idea.
 
Last edited:

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,287
ESPN is reporting that the 12 ESL clubs are looking at a two year Champions League ban. Should we just mark a PSG-Bayern final on the calendar now?

The TV networks must love this idea.
From how I read the article, it's Juve, Barça, Real Madrid, and Milan who are facing a two year ban. The other clubs have avoided a ban by signing a formal commitment to not pursue a Super League (or are close to such an agreement).
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,705
I learned from this article that once 9 clubs have withdrawn, the ESL is dead. So it seems Ceferin is using the 2 year ban as the threat to get one more club to back out (looking at you Milan) and sign one of these pledges to never join a future super league.* Ceferin has to keep the TV partners happy, and the mega clubs are what draw eyeballs globally. I mean, maybe beIN sports is a bit conflicted since a ban on the other clubs would allow PSG a clear path to lose to Bayern in the final for the next 2 seasons, but the rest would be looking for rebates at a time when revenue streams are already slowed. Ceferin has a line to walk here, which is why he’s splitting all sorts of hairs to distinguish between when clubs withdrew. He needs wiggle room to satisfy a desire to punish the clubs, a need to preempt future breakaway attempts, and the knowledge that he can’t piss off the broadcasters.

*I’m sure John Henry already has a pile of lawyers telling him that this agreement doesn’t prohibit Liverpool from joining a Super Duper League
 

ElUno20

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
4,527
ESPN is reporting that the 12 ESL clubs are looking at a two year Champions League ban. Should we just mark a PSG-Bayern final on the calendar now?

The TV networks must love this idea.
Bullshit. Let's ban like 90% of the teams that drive revenue and eyeballs for 2 years.

This will probably just be like a huge fine
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
Watching your local team play in person was the only way to watch soccer. For most of that period, there was no soccer on television. Until the 90s soccer on TV was fairly limited.
Just catching up on this thread — this is a very insightful point.

In America, TV became a big factor in sports in the 1950s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the 1960s and 1970s saw a lot of upheaval (rival leagues, expansion, etc.). No clubs threatened to break away from their leagues, but if promotion/relegation was part of the American model, they would have.

I guess European soccer is going through that period of upheaval now, and with UEFA serving as a force for the status quo that had no analogue here, it is taking longer for everything to shake out.
 

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,287
Just catching up on this thread — this is a very insightful point.

In America, TV became a big factor in sports in the 1950s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the 1960s and 1970s saw a lot of upheaval (rival leagues, expansion, etc.). No clubs threatened to break away from their leagues, but if promotion/relegation was part of the American model, they would have.

I guess European soccer is going through that period of upheaval now, and with UEFA serving as a force for the status quo that had no analogue here, it is taking longer for everything to shake out.
I think the really important difference in how a lot of the US vs. Euro sports league dynamics have played over the years is that top Euro soccer leagues have external competition and top American sports leagues do not. Big-time European sports owners are jealous of the American sports system because the American sports system is much better at limiting costs as a percentage of revenue. In the status quo, these would-be Super League clubs are already nearly guaranteed a Champions League place (except in England, where were 6 ESL clubs and only 4 CL slots) due to their massive domestic financial advantages anyway. But despite massive global commercialization, domestic dominance, and a steady flow of CL cash, many of them are still very stretched financially. We can understand this as a result of some dumb financial decisions in the transfer market, but owners are more likely to take the view that they are required to keep up with the Joneses.

If big owners or leagues want to tamp down costs, there's a collective action problem because you don't want to fall behind other leagues. And collective action across dozens of leagues and hundreds of clubs is hard, but it's easier with 12 "Super League" clubs. It's everything the owners want on paper: a bigger-than-the-CL-revenue stream, a guaranteed piece of that pie, and the long-term opportunity to curb costs because Super League status is permanent.
 

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,287
A major reason why promotion and relegation has survived in European leagues is culture and tradition. But there also hasn't been a ton of pressure to end it any particular league, and that's because it doesn't matter financially all that much, aside from the aforementioned collective action problem that no one league can individually solve.

1) The big clubs that drive TV contract revenue aren't going to be relegated because there is so little parity that it's almost impossible for that to happen.

2) Even big European countries are much smaller than the US, meaning that even big Euro countries can't fill a league with clubs from large metropolitan areas. The churn between the bottom of the 1st division and the lower divisions doesn't really matter from a TV contract perspective. Replacing Burnley (which has a natural catchment area of not much more than 100k people) with Nottingham Forest or replacing Freiburg with Eintracht Braunschweig or replacing Benevento with Brescia simply makes no difference to the TV money coming in.


In contrast, according to 2019 Census estimates, the US has 34 metro areas with >2m people. That means that top leagues can hand-pick big metro areas and that they don't have a big incentive to change the lineup of teams. It's also a system with a tradition of great deal of parity across pro leagues. It's much more realistic that teams from Chicago and LA could get relegated and be replaced by teams from Rochester and Tulsa if such a system existed, and that would make the business side very unhappy.
 
Promotion and relegation also makes so many more games between teams in the lower half of the table meaningful, and therefore watchable. I don't think that fact massively moves the needle when you look at, e.g., Premier League TV contracts, but it has to move it some. (And as long as the marquee clubs have effectively become too big to fail - which is almost certainly true at this point - you don't really risk losing any big-money teams from the league in any given year.)
 

Section30

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2010
1,090
Portland OR
Barca is in real financial trouble. Are they too big to fail? 1.2 Billion Euros in debit and they owe many other clubs money for transfers already made.

https://everythingbarca.com/2021/01/27/barcelona-debt-transfer-fee

Throwing things at the wall, or, ideas on fixing current problems:

What if they institute a cap on transfer fees?. Say 50 million Euros. Pair it with playing time contract language where a player can exercise an out clause if he is not getting x amount of minutes. It would allow more movement of players rotting on the bench as well as force teams to not not hoard stars as they might more easily force a move to another teams. The smaller clubs still get decent money for developing the player but at least have a chance at retaining the very best players. Also include a player option to block trades if they have 5 years service time.

Require an audit of the FA and UEFA organizations that makes transparent where all money is being spent. Have them justify the fees they are charging and have all teams/ player reps/fans involved in any money allocation.

Have the European Union audit FIFA and put a cap on all salaries and perks. Investigate all business activities conducted by FIFA including human rights violations in the upcoming World Cup. Establish a code of ethics for FIFA officials and add severe and strict penalties for bribery, nepotism and payments in kind. Require term limits for for all members of FIFA. (12 years?)
 

Tuff Ghost

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
523
UEFA announced discipline for the nine clubs that agreed to and later rejected the European Super League (full link), including 5% of each club's European revenue for one season. Edit to add: Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus are still in a bit of a show-down with UEFA at this point.

In particular, each club:
  • unreservedly acknowledges and accepts the binding nature of the UEFA Statutes
  • remains committed to and will participate in any UEFA Club Competitions each season for which that club qualifies on sporting merit
  • will rejoin the European Club Association, which is the only representative body for clubs that UEFA recognises
  • will take all steps within their power with a view to terminate their involvement in the company established to form and operate the Super League and cease any existing related legal actions
  • as a gesture of goodwill, and together with the other clubs, will make a donation totalling an aggregate of €15 million, to be used for the benefit of children, youth and grassroots football in local communities across Europe, including the UK
  • will be subject to the withholding of 5% of the revenues they would have received from UEFA club competitions for one season, which will be redistributed
  • agree to have substantial fines imposed if they seek to play in such an unauthorised competition (€100 million) or if they breach any other commitment they have entered into in the Club Commitment Declaration (€50 million)
  • will provide individual commitments to UEFA in which all the principles and values set out in the 2019 Memorandum of Understanding between UEFA and the European Club Association are accepted.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,705
Hit them directly in the pocketbook, probably the most painful punishment they could extract.
 

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,287
https://www.juventus.com/en/news/articles/statement-from-barcelona-juve-and-real

(iii) The 12 founding clubs also acknowledged that the Super League was a unique opportunity to offer fans around the world the best possible show and to reinforce global interest in the sport, which is not a “given” and is challenged by new generational trends. Moreover, one of its main objectives was to promote women's football on a global level, a tremendous, but currently underestimated, opportunity for the sector.
The chutzpah of these clubs, I swear. It'd be a real shame if they went bankrupt and had to pull a Rangers.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,705
Pretty sure these clubs would invest more in their women’s squads without a Super League, you know, if they wanted to. Right, John Henry?