Potential break away European super football league

guitars4you

UnclePsychosis said:

guitars4you said:

UnclePsychosis said:

guitars4you said:

UnclePsychosis said:

crunchman said:

The problem is that most of the money will be from elsewhere in the world.  Fans in this country don't care much about the Champions League but it is a big money spinner around the world.  The 6 English clubs involved in this probably think they will make more money from that than they will lose locally.

Spot on. For everyone other than a few hundred thousand British people the Premier League "is"  Liverpool/Man Utd/Chelsea/Man City/Arsenal. The other clubs don't matter globally. 

But in many ways that is crap

Chelsea don't even have the 3rd best ground in London - wasn't that long ago that Chelsea were not even the 3rd best team in London let alone an elite in Europe

20 years ago Man City struggled to beat Gillingham 

And what a joy for football that only a few years ago Leicester won the PL

The point is that the current system might have its fault - But dreams can and do happen as teams can come and go - It is a joy that the likes of Bournemouth can join the PL, even if it is only for a few seasons - Sure, Man U is a global success both on/off the pitch, but it is more enjoyable for the good of the game that the minnows can take them on from time to time and even win 

Man City + Arsenal's previous success in Europe is barely better than that of Newcastle, or Leeds, let alone Villa and Forest - So yes today they have money but hardly a  powerhouse of Europe - IMO they have no right to protect themselves from a bad day at the office and no relegation 

30 years ago we all watched the PL and as I mentioned above First year of the PL and the top 6 were Man Utd, Villa, Norwich, Blackburn, QPR and Liverpool 

It is the fact that it is a closed shop that is so wrong 

You're talking like a fan with a prior attachment to your team, rather than an accountant. 

Twenty years ago insane money hadn't reached football. What Forest and Villa did in the 70s and 80s is irrelevant to football in 2021---What gives City the right to protect themselves is money, not history. They've bought their way to the top and now intend to pull the ladder up. 

To paraphrase a thing I saw elsewhere that I agree with - I watch US sports. I am more likely to watch if there's a 'big game'. I don't really care if there is relegation or not. There are hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people across the globe who have exactly the same relationship with European football. These people don't even notice that Bournemouth or Catania or Mallorca are spending a year in the top flight. They will however notice that Liverpool are playing Barcelona and tune in accordingly. 

None of this makes any sense to us as fans. You have to view it through the lens of money. It's 100% about money and nothing to do with history, supporters, or any of that romantic stuff. 

On a simple principle that the biggest have the right to be bigger, then just let Amazon run the world - The elite have, IMO, no right to demand/except a league, with no relegation because they had a bad year - That is not sport - What would we think if the top 10 ranked tennis in the world demand a place in the last 16 of all major tournaments etc etc - The All Blacks demand right of access to the last 4 of the world cup etc etc 

Let them have their big league - But they can sod off and let football get back to its grass root 

UEFA/FIFA are corrupt and I dare say the EFL and PL are not exactly right about everything, but it still allows a form of competition - A closed shop is just pure greed + a  form of corporate fascism

I don't disagree with you, other than the hyperbole about fascism. 

But then I'm a football fan, not a multi-billion pound business which exists to make oodles and oodles of money. 

Millions of NFL fans would disagree that a closed shop isn't sport, by the way. 

I'm sure we can't always agree - I respect your thoughts and comments - I have read them, so good to take on board what the other side have to say

To be honest I don't watch much USA Sports at all, but aware so much of the franchise arrangements in place - Funnily enough my daughter is at Uni studying sports/business/management and has written a few essays already on such topics and her chat with me today has already told me more than I previously knew - Yet the new 100 cricket franchise to start soon has been set-up with full ECB approval, to work with the funding/development of the existing county cricket league

I'm not 100% up to date on the IPL franchise and how much of the revenue goes to grass roots and the test match system, along with any closed shop - But will have an explore of this later today 

It was good to see the 'authority body' take on Saracens Rugby when they 'stepped out of line'

crunchman

mrkb said:

guitars4you said:

crunchman said:

It might be illegal:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/04/19/european-super-league-announcement-statement-reaction-live-latest/

Here is an excerpt:

There is a “massive risk” that the new European Super League could be blocked under EU sports law, with one leading sports lawyer only rating the chances of it being allowed as “50-50”, reports Tim Wigmore.

The new European Super League is planned to have guaranteed spots for 15 of the 20 clubs, who would be completely exempt from relegation. As such, the entire competition could be barred by European Union competition law. 

“My instinct is under the current legal framework and approach that it is 50-50,” said Darren Bailey, a lawyer and consultant to Charles Russell Speechlys’ sports group who was formerly the Football Association’s director of football governance and regulation.

In 2018, Uefa and the EU signed a new Memorandum of Understanding. The agreement stated that the Council of Europe and Uefa recognise that the European sports model “is based on sporting and financial solidarity mechanisms” citing “open competitions” and explicitly mentioning “the principle of promotion and relegation”.

Bailey said that this agreement could create scope for a case against the Super League - either going through the European Commission or even being initiated by the Commission themselves.

interesting

But we've left the EU, so we can have a "super league" with just the 6 English clubs........ lol, that would be crap.

Alternatively, we could scupper it even if the EU don't have bottle.

If we pass a law enshrining promotion and relegation into our sport culture, and/or equal distrubution of money, then the English clubs couldn't be involved pull the drawbridge up after themselves.

That might be quite handy in Rugby as well given the desire of some to ring fence the Premership and get rid of promotion and relegation @gassage

UnclePsychosis

A post I saw elsewhere that I think I tend to agree with... 

On the one hand, this is a grotesque move, one which is a complete anathema to sporting merit.

On the other... 

These clubs will start treating the epl, la liga and serie A with the same disregard they already treat their domestic cups? Struggling to care about that. 

The precious 'greatest league in the world' will be undermined and embarrassed? Struggling to care about that. 

UEFA will be hurt because their precious champions league will be undermined? Struggling to care about that. 

EUFA are gazumped by a group of clubs taking the pre-existing direction of travel instigated by EUFA themselves one step further by making it a literal closed shop rather than just stacking the deck to favour the 'elite' clubs? Struggling to care about that. 

Sky will be hurt by said undermining of epl and could well pump less money into it? That would actually be fucking excellent. 

I can see why EUFA, Sky, the epl and supporters of those clubs are upset, for sure. It is also astonishingly funny watching these very same organisations and broadcasters bemoaning bare-faced greed and elitism. Necks of solid brass. The hypocrisy is transparent and the meltdown has been quite hilarious to watch. 

Overall, a bit of a mixed bag, then. 

jpfamps

UnclePsychosis said:

I don't disagree with you, other than the hyperbole about fascism. 

But then I'm a football fan, not a multi-billion pound business which exists to make oodles and oodles of money. 

Millions of NFL fans would disagree that a closed shop isn't sport, by the way. 

There are key differences with the NFL.

1) There are no lower leagues for American football; there is college football and NFL and that's it really, so there are no leagues to be relegated to.

2) Even the Americans realise that a league where the same team/s win all the time is not marketable, hence the draft system that allows weaker teams to sign the better players. I don't see any mechanism similar to this being proposed; and I think it would be hard to enact one.

3) There is no international American football.

Lestratcaster

What a load of bollocks this is. What's happened to history, tradition and the fans in the sport which is meant to be a working class one? As an Arsenal fan we are not doing very at the moment but to then thrust us into some league where we play Europe's elite twice a season as we are in there to make up the numbers is bullshit. The fixtures will be the same each year with no incentive for anything and no cup competitions I believe. No internationals either, what footballer won't want to play for their country? What happens with Saka, Smith Rowe and all the other youngsters in international tournaments?

We aren't doing very well in the league and despite reaching the semi finals of the Europa League we are miles off the Champions' League teams in the competition. 

It's all greedy bastards after the banknotes I think.

IvanMC

"The fierce passion for footie will never ebb away," said someone; "the ball won't get dirty -ever," Maradona used to say. But wait... this. Football has become a massive company whose rapacity can't be satisfied by all the money in the world. Pretty sad, innit? Such a beautiful sport having turned into this.

RaymondLin

If the players in these teams are barred from playing for their country, and also possible expulsion from their domestic leagues.  As a player, even if you are paid well, 10x or 100x, it's going to get boring fast, 1 little ESL is all you play.  There wouldn't be anything to play for, it will be no different than players going to China at the end of their career.

UnclePsychosis

Lestratcaster said:

What a load of bollocks this is. What's happened to history, tradition and the fans in the sport which is meant to be a working class one? As an Arsenal fan we are not doing very at the moment but to then thrust us into some league where we play Europe's elite twice a season as we are in there to make up the numbers is bullshit. The fixtures will be the same each year with no incentive for anything and no cup competitions I believe. No internationals either, what footballer won't want to play for their country? What happens with Saka, Smith Rowe and all the other youngsters in international tournaments?

We aren't doing very well in the league and despite reaching the semi finals of the Europa League we are miles off the Champions' League teams in the competition. 

It's all greedy bastards after the banknotes I think.

What happened was multi-billion pound businesses realised that armchair fans are worth more money than the traditional supporter model.

As for internationals - lots of players genuinely don't want to play for their country. It's something of a risky sideshow. Lots do, but lots clearly don't care.

This is the inevitable endgame based on the last thirty years. Personally I'm quite enjoying the meltdown from organisations who helped us get where we are. Other than that, I can only hope that the whole thing implodes and takes a few of these rotten institutions with it and maybe we can get back to football as a sport instead of a business again. Can't see it happening, though. I think that if the ESL happens it will be (financially) successful. 

crunchman

I'm not sure what things will look like 20 years down the line.  I don't think youngsters these days are into sport in the same way as my generation (in my 50s now).  A generation of having most of it behind a paywall means they haven't grown up watching it.

There are also a lot of other things competing for their time.  When I was a kid, sport was pretty much the only thing on TV on a Saturday afternoon.  Now they have so many option and and most would rather watch YouTube or Netflix.  Then you add in gaming.  We got our first computer when I was 13 or 14.  Now they have all the consoles, they have Roblox etc on PCs and iOS/Android.

The market for sports may well shrink significantly over the next 20 to 30 years.

UnclePsychosis

jpfamps said:

UnclePsychosis said:

I don't disagree with you, other than the hyperbole about fascism. 

But then I'm a football fan, not a multi-billion pound business which exists to make oodles and oodles of money. 

Millions of NFL fans would disagree that a closed shop isn't sport, by the way. 

There are key differences with the NFL.

1) There are no lower leagues for American football; there is college football and NFL and that's it really, so there are no leagues to be relegated to.

2) Even the Americans realise that a league where the same team/s win all the time is not marketable, hence the draft system that allows weaker teams to sign the better players. I don't see any mechanism similar to this being proposed; and I think it would be hard to enact one.

3) There is no international American football.

1. As far as Liverpool, Man Utd, Barcelona etc and the global armchair fan are concerned, the lower leagues may as well not exist.

2. Bring the ladder up, establish safety net of closed shop, worry about details of how they do it later.

3. FIFA are astonishingly corrupt. If anyone thinks they're going to devalue their money spinning world cup by excluding the superstars of European football they are dreaming. A way will be found, because money talks. There's a world cup in Qatar ffs! 

jpfamps

scrumhalf said:

All those who talk of bans, fines and demotions should read about the litigation that followed the banning of England cricketers after they signed for Kerry Packer.

The national FAs cannot just do as they please. And if there's enough money to give the clubs a golden hello of a bazillion quid there will be enough money for some weighty lawsuits.

I still think that this is a power play for a revised Champions League, coupled with a slimming down of the Prem to 18 clubs and then 16.

The litigation post Packer was brought by individuals and related to restraint of trade; it was not brought by teams.

As far as I am aware this did not result in Packer contracted players playing international cricket.

Furthermore, the rebel cricket tours to South Africa resulted in substantial international bans that were not successfully challenged legally.

The RFU has a policy of not selecting players who play overseas.

duotone

There is a website https://thesuperleague.com/index.html which looks pretty bare atm

jpfamps

UnclePsychosis said:

1. As far as Liverpool, Man Utd, Barcelona etc and the global armchair fan are concerned, the lower leagues may as well not exist.

2. Bring the ladder up, establish safety net of closed shop, worry about details of how they do it later.

3. FIFA are astonishingly corrupt. If anyone thinks they're going to devalue their money spinning world cup by excluding the superstars of European football they are dreaming. A way will be found, because money talks. There's a world cup in Qatar ffs! 

1) Absolutely. The big change has really come about by the increase in TV revenue versus gate money. The big clubs have been itching to get pay per view up an running.

2) Why would you not want to pull the ladder up if it's in your interest?

3) Awarding the World Cup to Qatar is a joke. 

ICBM

Speaking as someone who hasn't been interested in football for decades once it stopped being mostly about local talent and became about how good a team of outsiders you can buy, I both don't care and hope the whole thing implodes spectacularly at the same time...

But what I really want to know is - what does it have to do with the Prime Minister, other than a cheap attempt to ingratiate himself with what he perceives as the 'working class' by pretending to share their outrage?

https://news.sky.com/video/european-super-league-esl-plans-very-damaging-for-football-pm-12280221

Gassage

jpfamps said:

scrumhalf said:

All those who talk of bans, fines and demotions should read about the litigation that followed the banning of England cricketers after they signed for Kerry Packer.

The national FAs cannot just do as they please. And if there's enough money to give the clubs a golden hello of a bazillion quid there will be enough money for some weighty lawsuits.

I still think that this is a power play for a revised Champions League, coupled with a slimming down of the Prem to 18 clubs and then 16.

The litigation post Packer was brought by individuals and related to restraint of trade; it was not brought by teams.

As far as I am aware this did not result in Packer contracted players playing international cricket.

Furthermore, the rebel cricket tours to South Africa resulted in substantial international bans that were not successfully challenged legally.

The RFU has a policy of not selecting players who play overseas.

Frank, 

That is predominantly (almost solely) because the unions concerned (mostly Japan or FFR) cannot guarantee release windows (roughly 80 days a year) for training, rather than penalising the player for playing overseas. 

Hope you're well.

jpfamps

ICBM said:

Speaking as someone who hasn't been interested in football for decades once it stopped being mostly about local talent and became about how good a team of outsiders you can buy, I both don't care and hope the whole thing implodes spectacularly at the same time...

But what I really want to know is - what does it have to do with the Prime Minister, other than a cheap attempt to ingratiate himself with what he perceives as the 'working class' by pretending to share their outrage?

https://news.sky.com/video/european-super-league-esl-plans-very-damaging-for-football-pm-12280221

Well he wouldn't be the first Prime Minister to try to pull this stunt, although at least he hasn't previously tried to claim to support a football team near his constituency.....

It's quite interesting how football has now become "respectable"; in the 70's and 80's most politicians would have actively tried to distance themselves from it.

earwighoney

ICBM said:

Speaking as someone who hasn't been interested in football for decades once it stopped being mostly about local talent and became about how good a team of outsiders you can buy, I both don't care and hope the whole thing implodes spectacularly at the same time...

But what I really want to know is - what does it have to do with the Prime Minister, other than a cheap attempt to ingratiate himself with what he perceives as the 'working class' by pretending to share their outrage?

https://news.sky.com/video/european-super-league-esl-plans-very-damaging-for-football-pm-12280221

I imagine aside from attempting to position himself to the fans perspective he is concerned by the economic impact.

If the big teams aren't competing on all cylinders the knock on impact could be huge in economic terms, as would be taking away the element of competition. 

The knock on impact on local businesses could be enormous.

Hattigol

ICBM said:

But what I really want to know is - what does it have to do with the Prime Minister, other than a cheap attempt to ingratiate himself with what he perceives as the 'working class' by pretending to share their outrage?

Isn't that exactly how he won an election?

jpfamps

Gassage said:

jpfamps said:

scrumhalf said:

All those who talk of bans, fines and demotions should read about the litigation that followed the banning of England cricketers after they signed for Kerry Packer.

The national FAs cannot just do as they please. And if there's enough money to give the clubs a golden hello of a bazillion quid there will be enough money for some weighty lawsuits.

I still think that this is a power play for a revised Champions League, coupled with a slimming down of the Prem to 18 clubs and then 16.

The litigation post Packer was brought by individuals and related to restraint of trade; it was not brought by teams.

As far as I am aware this did not result in Packer contracted players playing international cricket.

Furthermore, the rebel cricket tours to South Africa resulted in substantial international bans that were not successfully challenged legally.

The RFU has a policy of not selecting players who play overseas.

Frank, 

That is predominantly (almost solely) because the unions concerned (mostly Japan or FFR) cannot guarantee release windows (roughly 80 days a year) for training, rather than penalising the player for playing overseas. 

Hope you're well.

I assumed it may be something like that, but I wasn't 100% sure.

Regardless, I assume there have been no legal cases relating to restraint of trade. Is that correct?

Also, are the RFU allowing selection of players who play in Wales?

Gassage

jpfamps said:

I assumed it may be something like that, but I wasn't 100% sure.

1) Regardless, I assume there have been no legal cases relating to restraint of trade. Is that correct?

Also, are the RFU allowing selection of players who play in Wales?

1) None. It's made pretty clear to those that go. Also worth pointing out that the RFU also subsidise EPS players for time away so they pay the PRL Clubs, but that arrangement is ring fenced to the PRL only.

2) Thankfully there are none at the moment but yes, as long as they are available for EPS- which effectively means that the Welsh Club would be penalised as they don't get the RFU subsidy.

As an aside- the last player to be selected for England  that I can recall when contracted to a Welsh club was (remarkably) Sam Underhill- he debuted in Argentina in 2017 as an Osprey but joined Bath officially 3 weeks later.