12 of the biggest soccer clubs around the world are trying to break off and make their own league, laughably called the Super League.
Would be pretty much the death of European football and is immediately the most hated idea on the planet.
Biggest clubs from Bundesliga not signing up (yet)
Why are they doing this? To eliminate relegation and the ups and downs of champions league revenues. They'd be more like the NFL or NBA where the value of your franchise is stable year to year ad infinitum.
I'm an LFC fan but I don't think I could really support them in some new dumb league.
Good rant from Gary Neville about how it's a pure money grab by the owners. - (
New Window )
I'd call their bluff and kick them out of the domestic leagues.
Also Mourinho OUT at Spurs. Not surprising, the team was going nowhere, couldn't keep a lead and his style doesn't seem to work in the modern game.
I know sports are all about the money anymore, but Spurs have sold their souls to basically finish dead last in this new league every season.
The 6 biggest English teams, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter, Barcelona, Atlético and Real Madrid.
UEFA is already calling their bluff: Players who play in the proposed Super League will be banned from playing in the World Cup and the Euros.
I'd call their bluff and kick them out of the domestic leagues.
Also Mourinho OUT at Spurs. Not surprising, the team was going nowhere, couldn't keep a lead and his style doesn't seem to work in the modern game.
Yeah, it's all about money and keeping that franchise valuation as stable as possible. Would strangle out all the smaller clubs and allow a poorly run team to stay printing money for its owner.
If it moves forward, I'd love for them to kick them out of their domestic leagues. And credit to the German clubs for not going for it (at least so far).
If the US sports had regulation, there'd be consequences for bad owners. The Knicks, for example, would have been relegated all the way to a YMCA league. Instead, Dolan has failed his way to owning the most valuable NBA franchise (I think? If not the top, very near the top). From a business standpoint, I can understand why an owner of the big club would want to do this but man, it's shitty.
And "super league" is the worst name I've ever heard lol
Quote:
seems like a bluff
The 6 biggest English teams, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter, Barcelona, Atlético and Real Madrid.
UEFA is already calling their bluff: Players who play in the proposed Super League will be banned from playing in the World Cup and the Euros.
haha good luck keeping the best 400 players out of the world cup and euros
Quote:
In comment 15225446 Joey from GlenCove said:
Quote:
seems like a bluff
The 6 biggest English teams, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter, Barcelona, Atlético and Real Madrid.
UEFA is already calling their bluff: Players who play in the proposed Super League will be banned from playing in the World Cup and the Euros.
haha good luck keeping the best 400 players out of the world cup and euros
I wouldn't fuck with FIFA. They certainly have the power and corruption to do just that.
If one thing gets FIFA to act promptly, it is endangering the golden goose. It is going to be a lot harder for the 12 teams to go at it in a "Super League" than it will be for FIFA to take actions.
This is a horrendous idea from greedy owners.
The problem is that this will make a mockery of domestic leagues. The reason the leagues work is that, without American-style playoffs, the extra competitions is what gives most teams something to play for.
As an example, the only thing making LFC's season interesting at this point is seeing whether they can qualify for the CL. They have no shot at winning the league and are nowhere near relegation. If they are automatically in this Super League, then that goes away.
I hope FIFA/UEFA/domestic leagues are able to make this idea worthless. I read that the teams are ready to take legal action if balked, though - so who knows.
I understand this is different than going up against a one entity sanctioning body and the break off is a cash grab (so was Norman's) but I won't be surprised if the governing bodies don't shut it down and then steal the idea in some way.
Yeah, FIFA and WC counter weapons might make this interesting, but this move is all you need to know about professional sports, footie no different.
A short (six-part?) series on Netflix, I think, might have been Prime, "The English Game", how football emerged from the quaint possession of elite, private, wealthy English clubs to become more a sport of the commoner--with the introduction of a paid, Scottish import to play on a mill team.
Fly a banner over their stadia?
Not really. No one was guaranteed a spot in the CL. You had to do well in your domestic league to get in. What's being discussed is a league where you are guaranteed to remain in it even if you finish last.
Quote:
Was supposed to be until they started allowing 4th place finishers in. Absolute greed. Nothing else.
Not really. No one was guaranteed a spot in the CL. You had to do well in your domestic league to get in. What's being discussed is a league where you are guaranteed to remain in it even if you finish last.
I understand re: guarantees and lack of consequences.
My point was that these marquee teams will market this as a league of the best teams in Europe. That's what what Chanpions League is supposed to be. And while you're correct in that no one is guaranteed a spot in the Champions League, they let a lot of bad teams in.
As far as this being representative of the best teams - that's true now, but if FIFA bans those players from Int'l competitions, those teams could very quickly lose their talent base.
it's not about quality of play. It's about value of the club. Forbes has Arsenal at 2.8B, Tottenham at 2.3B, and Leicester at 455M
Quote:
but having Tottenham or Arsenal over even Leicester at this point for quality of play is laughable. Recency bias sure but if you're trying to create a super league you'd have the best quality teams.
it's not about quality of play. It's about value of the club. Forbes has Arsenal at 2.8B, Tottenham at 2.3B, and Leicester at 455M
I get that, hence the comment title. I'm thinking if you're trying to make a super league appeal to the fans you'd focus on quality. It's obvious this isn't their goal and fans are seeing right through it.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Per Reuters
Real Madrid, Manchester City and Chelsea will likely be banned from this season’s Champions League semi-finals, UEFA executive committee member Jesper Moller told broadcaster DR on Monday.
“The clubs must go, and I expect that to happen on Friday. Then we have to find out how to finish (this season’s) Champions League tournament,” said Moller, who is the head of the Danish FA. “There is an extraordinary executive committee meeting on Friday.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/live/2021/apr/19/european-super-league-latest-reaction-to-breakaway-football-competition-live?
It is definitely more than a bluff though. The clubs involved are leaving their European Councils today and some of the execs in the club have resigned their positions in UEFA today.
Quote:
but having Tottenham or Arsenal over even Leicester at this point for quality of play is laughable. Recency bias sure but if you're trying to create a super league you'd have the best quality teams.
it's not about quality of play. It's about value of the club. Forbes has Arsenal at 2.8B, Tottenham at 2.3B, and Leicester at 455M
Tottenham only is valued at that because they built a brand new stadium - which no one is sitting in -- and they marketed hard in the States.
What this plan does is enable is basically place a ceiling on a team like Atalanta, West Ham, Newcastle, etc. from ever becoming a top-echelon team. It's pure monopoly, anti-trust.
It's going to be difficult to stop this. I've heard some sports lawyers say there is no case against them in a court, that they are 100% allowed to do this and they aren't breaking any laws.
I think they are allowed to do it. The question will be whether FIFA and UEFA are allowed to punish them - and their players - in a way that makes it unattractive to do it.
Tottenham also just fired Mourinho.
All of this just reflects my OPINION that I've formed during a lifetime watching this sport.
These past years have been really sad for the sport, the level of play and talent on the game fell off a gigantic cliff in this past decade or so.
In my opinion we had a LOT of players better than CR7 and Messi and whoever you want to include on the list, about 15-20 years ago. Needless to say it's not their fault, just pointing out that we should have MORE players on their level of play, many more.
Tactics like Tiki-taka have taken away the excitement of the game, we now have an overly tactical, boring and mostly scoreless games, most teams play thinking on a draw.
The nonstop rule changes dating back from 2010 are absurds, offsides rules changed a lot, no one in the WORLD knows what a handball is anymore.
VAR came to try and help with the offside problem (that comes from bad refs professionalization), and it is doing FAR more bad than good for the game, it took away the EXCITMENT of celebrating a goal, a penalty or whatever, you now have to wait for some guy in some room to tell you if it stands, and it just kills the celebrations as a fan.
It is not an exciting game to watch anymore.
I think soccer is well on it's way of dying in a decade or two, and that these owners of those 12 clubs that created this ridiculous league realized it and tried to do something about it, but it won't work.
In the end I just think this is a very bad ideia in a sea of bad ideas and declining that soccer is in for the past 10-15 years.
Regardless of how the professional sport turns out, it still is one of the most enjoyable games to PLAY, and I do think ppl around the world won't stop having fun playing ameteur, recreational games.
But I have to think the people running those clubs thought of that already before taking this step.
But I have to think the people running those clubs thought of that already before taking this step.
Yes, I've read that the clubs owned by shareholders or members (rather than billionaires) have to obtain shareholder or membership approval. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Also according to him all of the clubs are actually secretly hoping Fifa and UEFA DO expel their players as they don't want them playing in international or other competitions and risking injury.
Apparently it is the US based owners who have sold them on the idea of an NFL/NBA model and they're all in on it and don't care about any backlash.
First off, can FIFA punish players and ban them from Int'l play. If so, then what contractural obligations do the players have to adhere to. Can they void contracts because of the actions of their clubs (assuming they would want to leave). Then there are the trickle down issues to the youth academies and other team affiliated with the parent clubs.
The clubs may be prepared for the backlash, but if there are scenarios where they lose their top players, that will be worse than any backlash.
But I have to think the people running those clubs thought of that already before taking this step.
I think that if Abramovich, the sheikhs running Man City, and the Qataris running PSG were kicked out of football we wouldn't be anywhere near a European super league discussion right now. I think teams like RM, Barcelona, Man U, Liverpool, Juventus and the Milans, actual big clubs with real history, are trying to protect themselves from Chelsea, Man City and PSG with this move by forcing them to join a league where there will potentially be a salary cap and floor. I absolutely hate the super league idea but UEFA killed the golden goose when they invited Abramovich and the Middle East oligarchs to own clubs
Apparently it is the US based owners who have sold them on the idea of an NFL/NBA model
Figures.
It's really going to hurt the sport. It will be hard to know if the 'Super' clubs really are super because they will only be playing each other, and (it appears) their best players will no longer play for their countries, so national teams and overall interest in the sport will be hurt as well. I could see it failing after a few years.
Quote:
One question I'd have is that some clubs are owned by shareholders (Real Madrid and Barcelona definitely are). I assume their shareholders would have to approve this? It's not a popular idea with fans.
But I have to think the people running those clubs thought of that already before taking this step.
I think that if Abramovich, the sheikhs running Man City, and the Qataris running PSG were kicked out of football we wouldn't be anywhere near a European super league discussion right now. I think teams like RM, Barcelona, Man U, Liverpool, Juventus and the Milans, actual big clubs with real history, are trying to protect themselves from Chelsea, Man City and PSG with this move by forcing them to join a league where there will potentially be a salary cap and floor. I absolutely hate the super league idea but UEFA killed the golden goose when they invited Abramovich and the Middle East oligarchs to own clubs
I think they just want the money. According to reports The Glazer family and FSG are the ringleaders of this. Man City and Chelsea were apparently on the fence and were late to join in. Glazers pushed the idea of an NFL model so that they can have their own TV deal and make all the revenue.
PSG will probably join after the World Cup in 2022. It's in Qatar and they don't want to run any risk of that. Also Qatar is tied into the CL TV contracts too. But I have zero doubt PSG will join this when all that is done.
Quote:
In comment 15226041 Go Terps said:
Quote:
One question I'd have is that some clubs are owned by shareholders (Real Madrid and Barcelona definitely are). I assume their shareholders would have to approve this? It's not a popular idea with fans.
But I have to think the people running those clubs thought of that already before taking this step.
I think that if Abramovich, the sheikhs running Man City, and the Qataris running PSG were kicked out of football we wouldn't be anywhere near a European super league discussion right now. I think teams like RM, Barcelona, Man U, Liverpool, Juventus and the Milans, actual big clubs with real history, are trying to protect themselves from Chelsea, Man City and PSG with this move by forcing them to join a league where there will potentially be a salary cap and floor. I absolutely hate the super league idea but UEFA killed the golden goose when they invited Abramovich and the Middle East oligarchs to own clubs
I think they just want the money. According to reports The Glazer family and FSG are the ringleaders of this. Man City and Chelsea were apparently on the fence and were late to join in. Glazers pushed the idea of an NFL model so that they can have their own TV deal and make all the revenue.
PSG will probably join after the World Cup in 2022. It's in Qatar and they don't want to run any risk of that. Also Qatar is tied into the CL TV contracts too. But I have zero doubt PSG will join this when all that is done.
With no oil clubs, Real Madrid and Man United's cries for a European super league would fall on deaf ears. I believe they were the only clubs who wanted one 15 or so years ago
2. On the flip side, what's to motivate a Superleague team to put their best foot forward in their domestic competitions? They've got a ton of money rolling in already.
3. This opens the door to matches being played in the US, Qatar, China...
4. Does this open the door to franchises moving cities like in the NFL?
5. Feels like the Superleague teams are taking a titanic risk. If the Superleague doesn't catch on in popularity they'd have to come slinking back to UEFA, right?
6. The Champions League was already bordering on a Superleague anyway - and the changes in format that UEFA was to announce today only make it more imbalanced.
7. I'm glad I don't support any of these teams. I feel like this moves us a step closer to a world where watching sports means watching two teams of holograms named after corporations play in a virtual stadium.
2. On the flip side, what's to motivate a Superleague team to put their best foot forward in their domestic competitions? They've got a ton of money rolling in already.
3. This opens the door to matches being played in the US, Qatar, China...
4. Does this open the door to franchises moving cities like in the NFL?
5. Feels like the Superleague teams are taking a titanic risk. If the Superleague doesn't catch on in popularity they'd have to come slinking back to UEFA, right?
6. The Champions League was already bordering on a Superleague anyway - and the changes in format that UEFA was to announce today only make it more imbalanced.
7. I'm glad I don't support any of these teams. I feel like this moves us a step closer to a world where watching sports means watching two teams of holograms named after corporations play in a virtual stadium.
My thoughts exactly. It's a monstrosity. But UEFA, the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A mismanaged their affairs here in the years leading up to this
I thought I saw that the Superleague franchises won't be allowed in domestic competitions (and don't want to be in them). Perhaps I'm wrong about that.
5. Feels like the Superleague teams are taking a titanic risk. If the Superleague doesn't catch on in popularity they'd have to come slinking back to UEFA, right?
Right. This is what I think too - a very big risk.