#Ban the Superleague?

BoogieBoogie Shipmate
It was bound to happen.

There are two market forces, fear and greed. Football is immune from neither.

What do you think?

What should happen?

Should government intervene?

There will be some very strong feelings over this one.

https://tinyurl.com/y3atpypf
«134

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It's your last sentence that worries me. Perspective needed. As for the rest - meh. Only a game.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's your last sentence that worries me. Perspective needed. As for the rest - meh. Only a game.

    I agree entirely, but I’m in a family which will be talking about this endlessly - especially as ‘their’ teams are involved.

    On a wider note - fear and greed. Does money always win, and not just in football?

  • It’s entirely to be expected and the predictable endpoint of the financialisation of the sport.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I guess banning the new Super League would be a restraint of trade. But it's not as clear as that.

    One thought which does occur to me is that the club's will make themselves unavailable on dates on and around the new fixture dates in the new League. Is that in conflict with their articles of association with their various existing Leagues? The additional fixtures will get in the way of those Leagues creating their fixture programmes. I think there might be room for legitimate legal challenges about that.

    I note that Sir Alex Ferguson has very sharply criticised the new scheme.
  • The obvious thing to do is ban it. Sometimes at Anfield, they unveil a huge banner, "The working class created football, the rich steal it". If my club join, Man Utd, that's curtains for me. I expect there will be a legal tangle. The smaller clubs face ruin.
  • I notice that Jonathan Liew in the Guardian has said that the people behind this hate football. I agree, in the sense that it nullifies competition, and giant killing. Do I want to see Man Utd play Real Madrid every year? No, I want to see them play Burnley and Norwich.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited April 19
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I guess banning the new Super League would be a restraint of trade. But it's not as clear as that.

    Industries are regulated all the time. It’s maybe indicative of something that there are no German clubs in this league.

  • yohan300yohan300 Shipmate
    edited April 19
    It's a bit of a mystery to me, a few sports teams decided to play some matches and it's headline news and government are getting involved.

    OTOH I'd wish they'd ban those stupid 100-ball cricket matches while they're at it.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited April 19
    I’ve seen the overwhelmingly negative comment, but I don’t understand the mechanic by which it is detrimental to the fans ? Does it mean there are other games they won’t play, or it will cost more to see them or something ?
  • Originally football was a local thing, not a multinational money spinning enterprise, with various sheiks and Russian oligarchs owning the clubs and buying players from around the world. It's thought that local teams which would play local players is better for fans, rather than being seen as money sources for the plutocrats owning the big teams.

    But what would I know, having followed Wimbledon at Plough Lane when I could walk there, and still vaguely in touch with AFC Wimbledon, which still plays in the borough.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Originally football was a local thing, not a multinational money spinning enterprise, with various sheiks and Russian oligarchs owning the clubs and buying players from around the world. It's thought that local teams which would play local players is better for fans, rather than being seen as money sources for the plutocrats owning the big teams.

    But what would I know, having followed Wimbledon at Plough Lane when I could walk there, and still vaguely in touch with AFC Wimbledon, which still plays in the borough.

    Well that ship sailed so long ago that it could have rescued survivors from the Titanic.
  • I think it means the English clubs involved have elected themselves as an elite, playing an endless carousel of games against Real Madrid. It's aimed at TV money as well, obviously. Arsenal are currently 9th in the PL, and they gain entry to the magic elite, whereas Leicester, currently 3rd, don't.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I’ve seen the overwhelmingly negative comment, but I don’t understand the mechanic by which it is detrimental to the fans ? Does it mean there are other games they won’t play, or it will cost more to see them or something ?

    Cos it's basically cheating.

    There's already a money-spinning European competition for the top clubs, it's called the Uefa Champions League. But entry into that competition is on merit - it's for the top-ranked clubs in each domestic league.

    As I understand the Super League proposals, the Super League would be a closed shop, with no automatic path to entry for new challengers. So a club like Leicester or West Ham will never get in no matter how hard they try, and a club like Liverpool or City know that they're in there because their chairmen struck a dodgy deal, not because of the players' own efforts.
  • Originally football was a local thing, not a multinational money spinning enterprise, with various sheiks and Russian oligarchs owning the clubs and buying players from around the world. It's thought that local teams which would play local players is better for fans, rather than being seen as money sources for the plutocrats owning the big teams.

    But what would I know, having followed Wimbledon at Plough Lane when I could walk there, and still vaguely in touch with AFC Wimbledon, which still plays in the borough.

    Well, Man Utd fans saw this coming, after their club were taken over by the American Glazers, who appear to know fuck all about football. They then borrowed large sums, using the club as collateral. Money, money, money. There is no need to play games in Manchester now, they could play Real Madrid in Qatar every month.
  • As per Ricardus above, yes, football is based on uncertainty. OK, there are one-sided games, but the top clubs are often beaten by lower clubs. Arsenal scraped a draw against Fulham yesterday. Liverpool recently lost six games on the bounce. This proposal is just a bunch of rich guys circle jerking.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 19
    I don't think it needs to be banned as such, but I think these clubs could be making some significant miscalculations and they might find the competition isn't as lucrative as they expect because the audience enthusiasm might not be there.

    They're aiming for a competition culture that is more similar to America (and indeed Australia)* but there are some serious questions as to whether European fans will accept it. Promotion and relegation are a huge part of the current story, and while we might be talking about clubs that are in little danger of being relegated, another part of the story is the need to qualify for European competitions, and navigate your way through knockout cups.

    The thing about big games is, they cease to be big if you have them every single week. Even putting aside the genuine possibility that some of these clubs have a mass exodus of fans over this - the kind of fans that fill the stadium in normal times, not the kind of fans from around the world buying the merchandise - there isn't going to be the same fan buzz about facing another big rich club if that's what is happening all the time.

    *And I'm not sure about every American sport, but at least some of the big American leagues and the major Australian ones have drafts and, in Australia there are other mechanisms to even up the competition, ie salary caps. Whether I like it or not, these European football clubs win competitions because they have more money than other European football clubs, to sign up the best players. Certainly in England there are certain smaller clubs (I'm looking at Southampton for instance) who regularly develop great players and then can't keep them. So that's a fundamentally different system already.
  • Of course, it's possible that this is kite-flying, and some of the big clubs are using this as leverage, to get more control of the Champions League.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 19
    I've seen several reports that the Premier League actually has an existing rule forbidding clubs from entering other competitions without permission. So some kind of new ban isn't required, just enforcement of that rule.

    The report being that the chief executive of the Premier League has written to all 20 clubs to remind them of it.

    PS How many championships do we think Leicester City can win?
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Of course, it's possible that this is kite-flying, and some of the big clubs are using this as leverage, to get more control of the Champions League.

    To which the response should be, some of these clubs haven't done too great in the Champions League lately and none of them made the last final. Why do they think they should control it?
  • The obvious thing to do is ban it. Sometimes at Anfield, they unveil a huge banner, "The working class created football, the rich steal it". If my club join, Man Utd, that's curtains for me. I expect there will be a legal tangle. The smaller clubs face ruin.

    Your team or their business? They are free to do what they like within the constraints of any legal agreements they may have in the UK.

    Football Clubs are businesses not trusts. They are bound to seek the best financial returns.

    It doesn't actually matter to lots of us - oh that we would get as anguished about the inequality in our nation.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    It doesn't actually matter to lots of us - oh that we would get as anguished about the inequality in our nation.

    Remind me to go around invalidating any threads you start, on the grounds that you're talking about the wrong thing.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I’ve seen the overwhelmingly negative comment, but I don’t understand the mechanic by which it is detrimental to the fans ? Does it mean there are other games they won’t play, or it will cost more to see them or something ?

    I think it rubs fans noses in the fact that the clubs are now owned by foreign companies who don't give a damn about the fan base, only about profits.
    There is still the romantic notion that the fans own the clubs, or have enough financial clout to make an impact. They don't, and they don't like to be reminded of that.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    *And I'm not sure about every American sport, but at least some of the big American leagues

    Yeah, AFAIK American Football, Basketball, Baseball and Football (in the US) all have drafts.

    Another thing that may be relevant here is that for all the revenue they generate, the 12 clubs involved have not been great money spinners for their owners -- and I assume this is the point where the piper needs to be paid.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Borussia Dortmund and Bayern Munich will not be part of the new super league.

    This is due to the 50+1 rule. It’s an informal term used to refer to a clause in the regulations of the Deutsche Fußball-Liga (German Football League). The clause states that, in order to obtain a license to compete in the Bundesliga, a club must hold a majority of its own voting rights. The rule is designed to ensure that the club's members retain overall control, by way of owning 50% of shares, +1 share, protecting clubs from the influence of external investors.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Borussia Dortmund and Bayern Munich will not be part of the new super league.

    This is due to the 50+1 rule. It’s an informal term used to refer to a clause in the regulations of the Deutsche Fußball-Liga (German Football League). The clause states that, in order to obtain a license to compete in the Bundesliga, a club must hold a majority of its own voting rights. The rule is designed to ensure that the club's members retain overall control, by way of owning 50% of shares, +1 share, protecting clubs from the influence of external investors.

    Yeah, and the government is allegedly looking at something similar here -- though I assume this is crisis management rather than anything substantive.

    Labour had similar proposals back in 2019, which got panned as entirely impractical and against the spirit of capitalism or something.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    I’ve seen the overwhelmingly negative comment, but I don’t understand the mechanic by which it is detrimental to the fans ? Does it mean there are other games they won’t play, or it will cost more to see them or something ?

    I think it rubs fans noses in the fact that the clubs are now owned by foreign companies who don't give a damn about the fan base, only about profits.
    There is still the romantic notion that the fans own the clubs, or have enough financial clout to make an impact. They don't, and they don't like to be reminded of that.
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I’ve seen the overwhelmingly negative comment, but I don’t understand the mechanic by which it is detrimental to the fans ? Does it mean there are other games they won’t play, or it will cost more to see them or something ?

    I think it rubs fans noses in the fact that the clubs are now owned by foreign companies who don't give a damn about the fan base, only about profits.
    There is still the romantic notion that the fans own the clubs, or have enough financial clout to make an impact. They don't, and they don't like to be reminded of that.

    Some truth in that, but we are prepared to abandon our big team, 60 years as a fan, and follow the little local club. No idea how many others would follow suit.
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    edited April 19
    Seeing as the Premier League basically broke away from the FA to make more money for a small number of "elite" teams, it's more than a little hypocritical of them if they try to enforce "bans".

    Ultimately if the Manchester clubs, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal & Spurs say, all decide they would quit the PL over the matter who is going to blink first?

    FWIW more than a few $100m+ businessmen (all men) have thrown around the idea of a rival to the NBA:
    - New franchase, say 20 teams
    - 20 Billionaires/$100m+ buy in for 50% of a team each
    - 20 Biggest names in the NBA being given 50% of a team each
    - Next 20 Biggest names being offered triple their current salary and revenue sharing eg 1-5% of profit over the next 10-20 years
    - Next 20 biggest names/brightest future stars/solid players being offered double their salary
    - Make up the rest from College players and overseas players and anyone else who wants to jump ship.

    It would kill the NBA because at present the NBA = the personal brand of it's top 10-20 players
  • Of course, football (soccer), has a considerable grass roots, as do other sports. Yesterday, we were watching our local cricket team for a while, I suppose there is some pain among fans that that sense of localism is being ripped up. You could play the big Super League games in Qatar or LA, who cares. I would rather watch Norwich.
  • You could play the big Super League games in Qatar or LA, who cares. I would rather watch Norwich.

    Well, the teams are global brands, and for a few years the (local) fans enjoyed that status as that meant extra spend on players.

    But - modulo those who own a club as a prestige item - most of the owners are using the cash generated to either service debt in other parts of their portfolio or buy distressed assets, so this day was always likely to come.
  • I remember City fans running around, with tea-towels on their heads, after being bought by Sheikh Mansour. And of course, he has turned them into a mega club. Happy days.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Tbh I had hoped to watch the whole Man Utd v NCFC unfold a bit more......
  • yohan300 wrote: »
    OTOH I'd wish they'd ban those stupid 100-ball cricket matches while they're at it.

    The trouble with this one is that it's supposed to get new people interested and playing - especially the latter. Well, the ECB have already muddied those waters by not having all the game on terrestrial TV, which pretty much sums up the issue - participation in the grassroots game has fallen dramatically since 2005 when coverage went satellite-only. TBH, if it gets people playing, I'm happy to have the Hundred, but I wonder (a) whether it will and (b) how you get new people in who are going to discover that "real" cricket (village green, league, county, whatever) is a different game with different terminology to what they've learned. While cricket's laws are pretty damn arcane, will trying to play a different game work?

    And, I'll be honest, I am a local fan - I will be Essex as long as they, and I, continue to exist even if they did give me a few heart attacks this weekend. I've no horse in a franchise.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    GarethMoon wrote: »
    Seeing as the Premier League basically broke away from the FA to make more money for a small number of "elite" teams, it's more than a little hypocritical of them if they try to enforce "bans".

    But the Premier League has always remained part of the promotion/relegation system.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    The proposed super league is "all about money." Wow! What a revelation about professional football. What an insult to the Corinthian culture that has permeated its values hitherto! IMO the reaction to the recent proposals reflect a misplaced nostalgia and the innate conservatism that pervades British attitudes towards football, which leads commentators normally pro-European to wave a Red Wall Union Jack at the slightest suggestion of greater integration with the neighbours.

    Football since the inauguration of the Football League has always been about money, enabling working class footballers to pursue the sport. The owners, local businessmen, industrialists and manufacturers, made tidy profits in the mid twentieth century by operating a cartel that fixed low wages on the players, and failed to provide decent facilities for the paying customers, which were to produce disasters at Ibrox and Hillsborough. Along with this protectionism went a reluctance to engage in football outside the UK. The home internationals were the highlight of trans-national competition, and the (S) FA Cup dwarfed the emerging European Cup. Englands humiliation by Hungary, 1953, confirmed rather than challenged the wisdom of isolation, and Manchester United's decision to participate in the European Cup met with official hostility.

    The emergence of the Premier League in England, whose inauguration was greeted with the accusations of greed associated with the present proposals, has been associated with a significant rise in the overall quality of English football not only at the elite level, aided by television revenues. The influx of foreign players and coaches have raised technical standards and the quality of the game, and those with exceptional skills appropriately rewarded. English clubs are now among the best in Europe and regularly triumph in the Champion's League, probably the best of all competitions, including the World Cup. Facilities at grounds have improved immeasurably, including the quality of playing surfaces. American management has been greatly beneficial, particularly at Manchester United and Liverpool, and foreign investment at Chelsea and Manchester City, though maybe less secure in the longer-term, has not been without benefits. Top class international coaches are now part of the culture. Such changes have increased the gap between the top sides and those located in smaller towns- Bolton, Blackburn, Preston, and so on, but that's life. In Scotland, where the professional game is withering on the vine, there is no indication things might have been better in England had there been no 'top six'.

    The proposals for some kind of European League is not without merit, including its challenge to the corrupt elites of FIFA and UEFA, where officials seeking election have grossly increased the number of entrants to their competitions, thereby filling the calendar with mindless fixtures involving excessive travelling. Getting rid of the bloated Champions League as presently constituted on the lines proposed seem a good idea, though it requires an element of competition (say two leagues of 10 teams), with promotion, play offs and so on, and perhaps an element of entry and exit at the lower end. (Remember the FL already restricts entry). If this is a mid-week competition, it would allow its participants to continue as members of their respective national leagues. (One doubts they would be expelled from their existing national leagues because they are needed by the others). The Champions League would disappear.

    It is not simply the existing super clubs in the big nations that could benefit from this sort of development. Scottish football is in a very bad state, with only two clubs, Rangers and Celtic, of any account. They, however, are stymied through lack of competition and access to serious TV income. If, however, they could play in a quality European League alongside teams like Ajax, Dortmund, Athletico Madrid, or whatever, it would enable them to generate the income they need to have a reasonable chance of advancement. Clubs in other small counties like Denmark, Norway and Portugal might similarly benefit.

    Clearly, there is much to be discussed, but knee-jerk rejection should not dictate the approach.
  • Of course, English clubs will continue to do well in the Super league. <sarcasm>
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited April 19
    Kwesi wrote: »
    The proposals for some kind of European League is not without merit, including its challenge to the corrupt elites of FIFA and UEFA, where officials seeking election have grossly increased the number of entrants to their competitions, thereby filling the calendar with mindless fixtures involving excessive travelling. Getting rid of the bloated Champions League as presently constituted on the lines proposed seem a good idea, though it requires an element of competition (say two leagues of 10 teams), with promotion, play offs and so on, and perhaps an element of entry and exit at the lower end.

    [...]

    If, however, they [Celtic and Rangers] could play in a quality European League alongside teams like Ajax, Dortmund, Athletico Madrid, or whatever, it would enable them to generate the income they need to have a reasonable chance of advancement. Clubs in other small counties like Denmark, Norway and Portugal might similarly benefit.

    With respect, that's like saying: 'This idea would be a good idea if it was a completely different idea instead.'
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 19
    Kwesi wrote: »
    The proposed super league is "all about money." Wow! What a revelation about professional football. What an insult to the Corinthian culture that has permeated its values hitherto! IMO the reaction to the recent proposals reflect a misplaced nostalgia and the innate conservatism that pervades British attitudes towards football, which leads commentators normally pro-European to wave a Red Wall Union Jack at the slightest suggestion of greater integration with the neighbours.

    Football since the inauguration of the Football League has always been about money, enabling working class footballers to pursue the sport. The owners, local businessmen, industrialists and manufacturers, made tidy profits in the mid twentieth century by operating a cartel that fixed low wages on the players, and failed to provide decent facilities for the paying customers, which were to produce disasters at Ibrox and Hillsborough. Along with this protectionism went a reluctance to engage in football outside the UK. The home internationals were the highlight of trans-national competition, and the (S) FA Cup dwarfed the emerging European Cup. Englands humiliation by Hungary, 1953, confirmed rather than challenged the wisdom of isolation, and Manchester United's decision to participate in the European Cup met with official hostility.

    The emergence of the Premier League in England, whose inauguration was greeted with the accusations of greed associated with the present proposals, has been associated with a significant rise in the overall quality of English football not only at the elite level, aided by television revenues. The influx of foreign players and coaches have raised technical standards and the quality of the game, and those with exceptional skills appropriately rewarded. English clubs are now among the best in Europe and regularly triumph in the Champion's League, probably the best of all competitions, including the World Cup. Facilities at grounds have improved immeasurably, including the quality of playing surfaces. American management has been greatly beneficial, particularly at Manchester United and Liverpool, and foreign investment at Chelsea and Manchester City, though maybe less secure in the longer-term, has not been without benefits. Top class international coaches are now part of the culture. Such changes have increased the gap between the top sides and those located in smaller towns- Bolton, Blackburn, Preston, and so on, but that's life. In Scotland, where the professional game is withering on the vine, there is no indication things might have been better in England had there been no 'top six'.

    The proposals for some kind of European League is not without merit, including its challenge to the corrupt elites of FIFA and UEFA, where officials seeking election have grossly increased the number of entrants to their competitions, thereby filling the calendar with mindless fixtures involving excessive travelling. Getting rid of the bloated Champions League as presently constituted on the lines proposed seem a good idea, though it requires an element of competition (say two leagues of 10 teams), with promotion, play offs and so on, and perhaps an element of entry and exit at the lower end. (Remember the FL already restricts entry). If this is a mid-week competition, it would allow its participants to continue as members of their respective national leagues. (One doubts they would be expelled from their existing national leagues because they are needed by the others). The Champions League would disappear.

    It is not simply the existing super clubs in the big nations that could benefit from this sort of development. Scottish football is in a very bad state, with only two clubs, Rangers and Celtic, of any account. They, however, are stymied through lack of competition and access to serious TV income. If, however, they could play in a quality European League alongside teams like Ajax, Dortmund, Athletico Madrid, or whatever, it would enable them to generate the income they need to have a reasonable chance of advancement. Clubs in other small counties like Denmark, Norway and Portugal might similarly benefit.

    Clearly, there is much to be discussed, but knee-jerk rejection should not dictate the approach.

    While some of this is legitimate, the second half of it seems to be in an alternate universe.

    1. How is this a challenge to the "corrupt elites of FIFA and UEFA"? This isn't a bunch of plucky underdogs bucking the system, it's a bunch of very wealthy folk. Simply a different set of elites, who I'm sure could work on being corrupt. Certainly they're extremely self-interested. For one thing, they want a competition they're guaranteed to be in every year (no more fighting to be be in the top 4 of the Premier League, Arsenal can just buy their way in).

    2. Who says the fixtures are mindless? They be might be trivial to the big clubs. They are not trivial to the smaller clubs they compete against. And that's half the point isn't it, we've got a small handful of clubs who perceive themselves as the only important clubs.

    3. You complain about excessive travelling, and yet... have you somehow not noticed that the new competition commits to international travel just as often, if not more often, than the Champions League?

    4. If you think the clubs in Scotland, Denmark and Norway are going to be invited to the party, you're dreaming. Just maybe a Portuguese club might get thrown a few crumbs.

  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Interesting reading a bit more that UEFA & FIFA are both completely against it with the latter suggesting that players involved may be banned from playing in the World Cup.

    As one Italian paper put it; whether banning Messi from his last World Cup would hurt Messi or the World Cup more is a debatable point.

    But if UEFA, FIFA, and Boris are all 100% against it and talking about blocks or sanctions, then could this be Bosman Mark II?

    If a player at one of the 12 clubs doesn't want to play midweek in the superleague but is then perceived as being "punished" by being dropped for EPL or Champions League games or there is a breakdown in communication would UEFA & the UK gvt be willing to let players leave their club and join another, just as you would in regular employment, rather than the current situation of having to sit their contract out?
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    OK, fuller response, and in addition to @orfeo's many good points:
    Kwesi wrote: »
    (say two leagues of 10 teams), with promotion, play offs and so on, and perhaps an element of entry and exit at the lower end.

    [...]

    Scottish football is in a very bad state, with only two clubs, Rangers and Celtic, of any account. They, however, are stymied through lack of competition and access to serious TV income. If, however, they could play in a quality European League alongside teams like Ajax, Dortmund, Athletico Madrid, or whatever, it would enable them to generate the income they need to have a reasonable chance of advancement. Clubs in other small counties like Denmark, Norway and Portugal might similarly benefit.

    But these two aims are incompatible. Firstly, Uefa has 55 member associations. If you want smaller nations to have a slice of the pie, then at a minimum you need 55 places (one each).

    Secondly, if you want to increase competitiveness in the domestic leagues, then for each league you need to offer slightly more places than there are big clubs. If you offer two places to Scotland, then Celtic and Rangers will get them every year, and become bigger clubs each year compared to the rest of the league. If you want to use the Super League to create more than two big clubs in Scotland then you need to offer more than two places.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    If it goes ahead, the clubs concerned will be banned from taking part in any other competitions, both at home and in Europe. So no FA Cup or Champions League. And the players would be banned from playing for their national sides.

    For the clubs, I doubt that’s a problem. This is about being able to sell TV deals around the world, nothing more. They’ve been trying to take the sporting competition element out of their money-making operations for years.

    For the fans, of those clubs, it’s a massive problem. Not only will there be a lot fewer games, but the national competitions actually mean something to them. I suspect a great many would end up transferring their allegiance to another local club.

    For many of the players as well, I think it would be a problem. Despite the big wages on offer most of them are still sportsmen first, and they’ll want to compete in prestigious competitions like the FA Cup and turn out for their countries. I predict that a lot of the top players would request transfers to clubs still in the various national systems, leaving this superleague the home of older players looking for a big payday before retirement and journeyman pros for whom national representation isn’t likely to happen anyway. And, of course, one or two who are just in it for the money.

    For the remaining clubs in England, it would be a mixed bag. On the plus side, they would have a far better chance of progression and success without the so-called “big six” hoovering up most of the trophies every year. Indeed, in the first season six extra teams would have to be promoted to each division all the way down the pyramid in order to balance the numbers. Attendances at their games are unlikely to change much as their fans would still be loyal. But the TV money coming in would probably be a lot lower, because like it or not very few people in Russia or China want to watch Aston Villa play Newcastle United. More likely to win trophies, but less money coming in. As I said, a mixed bag.

    Personally I think it could be good for the national game in the long run, and it will certainly be fun to have a Premiership where almost anyone can win it. Doubly so if the likes of Kane, Rashford et al move to places like Leicester or Everton to ply their trade. If FIFA, UEFA and the national FAs hold their nerve then they can wave goodbye to these clubs and usher in a new era of (relative) competitiveness and equity in football.

    I do feel a little bit sorry for the fans of the clubs involved though.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I agree entirely, but I’m in a family which will be talking about this endlessly - especially as ‘their’ teams are involved.

    It's not "their" team - it's owned by some rich man. If the fans want it to be "their" team, then then fans should own it.

    So how will the fans respond to this? Will they abandon "their" team for a team that they actually own (FC United of Manchester?) or will they just keep giving money to the wealthy owners? The fans do have power here - if nobody purchases merchandise from these clubs, nobody watches their games on pay-per-view, and nobody buys a match ticket, things will change.

    But I'll bet you anything you like that the fans will whinge a bit and just keep on supporting and paying money to "their" team.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 19
    For the clubs, I doubt that’s a problem. This is about being able to sell TV deals around the world, nothing more. They’ve been trying to take the sporting competition element out of their money-making operations for years.

    Precisely. These are the clubs who have "fans" all over the world. Most of whom have never been to a home game. But they buy a lot of shirts.

    EDIT: These are also the clubs who, as a warm-up to the season, do a little tour of Asia, Australia and/or America, where tickets are sold on the prospect of seeing big name players who sometimes then don't actually play in the matches.

  • Yes, fans in Dubai and Taipei don't care about Barry from Burnley, or the history of Burnley. It's possible that exhibition matches in the Super league will generate so much money that domestic leagues are irrelevant. Then Barry will be in the old people's home, still moaning about Jimmy Hill, and remembering winning the league in 1960, etc.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Marvin the Martian: If it goes ahead, the clubs concerned will be banned from taking part in any other competitions, both at home and in Europe. So no FA Cup or Champions League. And the players would be banned from playing for their national sides.

    Despite the big wages on offer most of them are still sportsmen first, and they’ll want to compete in prestigious competitions like the FA Cup and turn out for their countries.

    .....but you are under-estimating the importance of these clubs to their domestic leagues, and the Champions League will be replaced by the new competition. Do you think that Fifa will be able to sell their competition to the TV companies without the participation of the world's top players?


    The FA Cup is already much reduced in status. It's more important to get 4th place in the Premiership than to win the Cup. The idea that winning that minor domestic competition would lead Rashford to join Norwich City, or whatever, as against enjoying the worldwide fame in the European Super League I don't find convincing. The FA Cup needs the top six more than they need the FA Cup. The same is true of the Premier League.

    It surely has to be appreciated that the average fan of the super clubs are not those living within a few miles of the ground but in China, South Korea and so on, who probably produce the shirts and memorabilia they purchase in considerable quantities, not to mention TV rights. It's called globalisation. Brexit is not the answer.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Ricardus: But these two aims are incompatible. Firstly, Uefa has 55 member associations. If you want smaller nations to have a slice of the pie, then at a minimum you need 55 places (one each).

    ....but you are envisaging the development taking place under the control of UEFA. My case is that like the Super League it takes place with or without the blessing of UEFA. Indeed, it may form part of a discussion surrounding the emergence of the Super League. There is no reason why each country should be represented, but that the clubs included have a product attractive to TV companies. Professional Football is a commercial enterprise not a welfare state.
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Marvin the Martian: If it goes ahead, the clubs concerned will be banned from taking part in any other competitions, both at home and in Europe. So no FA Cup or Champions League. And the players would be banned from playing for their national sides.

    Despite the big wages on offer most of them are still sportsmen first, and they’ll want to compete in prestigious competitions like the FA Cup and turn out for their countries.

    .....but you are under-estimating the importance of these clubs to their domestic leagues, and the Champions League will be replaced by the new competition. Do you think that Fifa will be able to sell their competition to the TV companies without the participation of the world's top players?

    Doesn't this in turn start from the assumption that 'the world's top players' will be more interested in the money from playing in the Superleague than the intangible rewards of remaining in their national leagues? I don't find it impossible to imagine - as @Marvin the Martian put it above - that ' a lot of the top players would request transfers to clubs still in the various national systems, leaving this superleague the home of older players looking for a big payday before retirement and journeyman pros for whom national representation isn’t likely to happen anyway. And, of course, one or two who are just in it for the money.' That might not be a particularly exciting show to watch.


    To open a new line of thought, does anyone remember Kerry Packer and World Series Cricket? I confess that I had to look this up and while the opening lines of the Wikipedia article don't reflect it as being a huge success (it seems to have run for three seasons) the opening paragraph concludes 'World Series Cricket drastically changed the nature of cricket, and its influence continues to be felt today.'
  • Isnt the IPL in cricket based on franchises? It seems to make money.
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Doesn't this in turn start from the assumption that 'the world's top players' will be more interested in the money from playing in the Superleague than the intangible rewards of remaining in their national leagues?

    The "world's top players" move around the world to whichever club offers them the most money. Neymar is Brazilian. He moved from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain for money. He wasn't worried about the "intangible rewards" of playing in La Liga.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    As a Canadian Liverpool fan I am having a hard time understanding the wish to ban the Super League. It looks to me like UEFA and FIFA trying to impose a monopoly.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Fawkes Cat: To open a new line of thought, does anyone remember Kerry Packer and World Series Cricket?

    I do, though it had slipped my mind until I read your post. I'd been thinking about the professionalisation of tennis.

    It is noticeable that top players are attracted to teams in the Champions League, and that they appear to reserve their best performances for such appearance, largely, I believe, because they welcome the opportunity to test themselves against the best and, hopefully, earn their respect. It is also satisfying to play alongside other top players. Regarding payment, the playing life of a footballer is very short and always perilous. Regarding their desire for top wages as 'mercenary' is unworthy- we do not live in the age of chivalry! The labourer is worthy of his hire!
Sign In or Register to comment.