#Ban the Superleague?

13

Comments

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Why is any of this a concern of government? I thought politicians these days kept clear of religious matters>
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 20
    Caissa wrote: »
    This issue is a major pond difference. The British/European model looks strange to North Americans raised on professional sports in which the franchises within a League only change when a team folds or is granted a franchise by the league. I understand also that the North American model seems strange from the other side of the Pond. What I have learned from this thread and from reading BBC coverage is the depth of feeling in the UK in favour of the current model and in oppositionn to the Super Leagues and its model.

    It is indeed a major pond difference.

    Something I didn't know until just a couple of days ago, thanks to a podcast, is that the minor leagues in American baseball consist of teams entirely owned by the teams in the main competition. The minor league players (who get paid an absolutely absurd pittance) are literally employees of the big clubs, farmed off into alternative teams in other cities to develop and in the hope of being called up to actually play for the club that hired them.

    I don't know whether the other big American sports like gridiron and basketball operate on the same basis. Up until now I had assumed that America operated like Australian competitions, where there might be 'feeder' regions for each club at the top so that they have first choice of juniors, but the smaller clubs are separate entities. But for baseball at least, the American model is very much that the big clubs have complete control of the entire structure.

    Such a model is pretty much unthinkable in European football. The whole competitive ethos is built around the prospect of a club achieving promotion to a higher league. And it does happen, there have been cases of clubs managing to go up several divisions (and also going down several divisions).

    Whereas the only way an American city can dream of getting a club into the big leagues is to buy a franchise when one becomes available.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Why is any of this a concern of government? I thought politicians these days kept clear of religious matters>

    Because Blojob can see personal glory?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    Why is any of this a concern of government? I thought politicians these days kept clear of religious matters>

    Elections round the corner.
  • Just saw a statement from Liverpool, all about new sources of revenue, nothing about the social and cultural meaning of football. And don't Liverpool call themselves the people's club? Yeah, right. No link, sorry.

    Mind you, my club, Man Utd, are owned by the Glazers, no words.

    No, that's Everton. On Merseyside at least...
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Why is any of this a concern of government? I thought politicians these days kept clear of religious matters>


    Boris probably sees votes in it, as with his green agenda. An election coming?

    On the Super league, it erases 150 years of football history and tradition. Of course, this can be done, see the Highland Clearances, but we will bloody fight back.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited April 20
    Because Blojob can see personal glory?
    Please note that it is the practice in Purgatory not to do this sort of thing to politicians’ names. Please don’t repeat.

    BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    edited April 20
    Hi Orfeo, Not to drift too far from the Super League but since you asked the NBA has the G- League as sort of a farm system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_G_League

    For the National Football League, College teams seem to be the main feeder system. Sometimes players may start in the Canadian Football League (a different set of rules) and then graduate to the NFL. The NBA and the NFL also have entry drafts for new players. One other pond difference is that in North America players are often traded for other players. We rarely have a player "transferred" for cash considerations.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited April 20
    orfeo wrote: »
    Something I didn't know until just a couple of days ago, thanks to a podcast, is that the minor leagues in American baseball consist of teams entirely owned by the teams in the main competition. The minor league players (who get paid an absolutely absurd pittance) are literally employees of the big clubs, farmed off into alternative teams in other cities to develop and in the hope of being called up to actually play for the club that hired them.

    I don't know whether the other big American sports like gridiron and basketball operate on the same basis.
    They don’t. For football and basketball, college football and basketball in effect operate as the training ground for professional sports. Some have suggested that the problems college sports are currently facing might be ameliorated if a farm team/minor leagues system similar to that for Major League Baseball was established for football and basketball.

    ETA: Cross-posted with Caissa, and he’s right. I forgot about the NBA’s G-League, which I frankly I rarely see much presence of. It’s not nearly as widespread as baseball’s minor leagues, which are very popular, at least around here.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 20
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Something I didn't know until just a couple of days ago, thanks to a podcast, is that the minor leagues in American baseball consist of teams entirely owned by the teams in the main competition. The minor league players (who get paid an absolutely absurd pittance) are literally employees of the big clubs, farmed off into alternative teams in other cities to develop and in the hope of being called up to actually play for the club that hired them.

    I don't know whether the other big American sports like gridiron and basketball operate on the same basis.
    They don’t. For football and basketball, college football and basketball in effect operate as the training ground for professional sports. Some have suggested that the problems college sports are currently facing might be ameliorated if a farm team/minor leagues system similar to that for Major League Baseball was established for football and basketball.

    ETA: Cross-posted with Caissa, and he’s right. I forgot about the NBA’s G-League, which I frankly I rarely see much presence of. It’s not nearly as widespread as baseball’s minor leagues, which are very popular, at least around here.

    For ice hockey, Wikipedia tells me that the NHL has affiliated teams in the American Hockey League (AHL). EDIT: And also the ECHL, whatever that stands for. SECOND EDIT: Apparently it once stood for "East Coast" but now it doesn't officially stand for anything!
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Why is any of this a concern of government? I thought politicians these days kept clear of religious matters>

    Well, if clubs wish to operate as businesses then I imagine issues of monopoly, anti-competitive practice etc. become and issue. But also, in so far as football developed in the UK - you could see it as an intangible cultural asset.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    This issue is a major pond difference. The British/European model looks strange to North Americans raised on professional sports in which the franchises within a League only change when a team folds or is granted a franchise by the league. I understand also that the North American model seems strange from the other side of the Pond. What I have learned from this thread and from reading BBC coverage is the depth of feeling in the UK in favour of the current model and in oppositionn to the Super Leagues and its model.

    I think the problem is in mixing the two systems.

    If all European leagues/divisions were independent of each other already, then it wouldn't matter so much - within the context of each league, each team would be competing for the same things, and if they wanted to compete for things outside of that league, then that would be up to them.

    But having one invitation-only super-league creates a situation where, within the other leagues, some teams need to score highly in order to progress to a more elite competition and some don't.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Re. The AHL. My hometown Saint John Flames. won the championship. the Calder Cup, as the Calgary Flames farm team. The CHL is a conglomeration of 3 junior leagues who develop players for the pros and minor pro leagues.

    I often hear references to Premier League clubs having junior teams. Do these function as development teams solely for the parent club? I ask because the better I can understand the system, the better I can understand the vehement opposition to the Super League.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Please note that it is the practice in Purgatory not to do this sort of thing to politicians’ names. Please don’t repeat.

    Mea culpa. I shall refrain forthwith.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited April 20
    Caissa wrote: »
    Re. The AHL. My hometown Saint John Flames. won the championship. the Calder Cup, as the Calgary Flames farm team. The CHL is a conglomeration of 3 junior leagues who develop players for the pros and minor pro leagues.

    I often hear references to Premier League clubs having junior teams. Do these function as development teams solely for the parent club? I ask because the better I can understand the system, the better I can understand the vehement opposition to the Super League.

    Basically yes, although the vast majority of academy players won't end up playing for the parent club.

    There are junior and reserve leagues that to an extent shadow the premier league, but which are (mostly) outside of the public eye, and most academy players will play in these, with occasional call-ups to the senior team for the most promising ones. The most successful academy players may:

    a.) Be sent out on loan to another (usually lower-ranked) club where they will get more opportunities to help their development;
    b.) Sign for another club who will pay the parent club at least a development fee to compensate for having trained the player (and possibly a transfer fee as well);
    c.) If they are really, really lucky - play regularly for the parent club.

    IIRC there was a proposal some years ago for Premier League youth teams to play in lower senior divisions but this was (rightly) shot down.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Thanks, Ricardus. That is helpful information.
  • Popping in after several years leave because this story has me hooked.

    I think the ESL clubs have made the mistake of saying the quiet part loudly. Part of the deal in the club world is that everyone, in theory, has a shot. With the right combination of academy talent, coaching, and a few transfer acquisitions, your local club could be winning trophies and competing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Westminster broke our strike, the unemployment lines are miles long, but on Saturday, the Boys can show what the North is made of. It’s fair, it’s open, a person can dream.

    Now anyone older than about 13 should know that this is a farce. Most clubs will never have the money to get to the top. Trying to get that far and failing can be a financial disaster- look at Leeds, Blackburn, and Portsmouth. The two clubs that did pull it off did so by making deals with pretty odious characters, and while there are still a few of those shopping around, as Newcastle discovered, people are less willing to look the other direction these days.

    But knowing that reality doesn’t make the ideal any less important. The open system is a fundamental basis of the bargain, and if you announce your specific intention to brake the bargain, people are going to be mad. Worse, you are going to dilute trust in your institution. And there’s some significant risk in doing that, even in the almost credibility-free world of international football.

    I appreciated the coincidence that Bielsa was the first manager to get a crack at an ESL team yesterday. His entire ethos is based on giving the serious fans what they want- high pressing, take no prisoners, do or die football. And he appreciates the bargain better than most- fans have huge emotional ties to their clubs, and the depth of those ties should (but doesn’t) play a part in how the clubs are run.

    On the other hand, there’s an American sports media stock character who constantly bangs on about what’s good for business. (The particularly obnoxious ones will speculate on Twitter about how a player’s contract or endorsement deals will be affected while a player is actively writhing on the court with a knee injury- no kidding!) That guy was delighted yesterday. But there’s a reason we hate that guy. The emotional bit is what made the business valuable in the first place. You alienate your fans at your own risk.

    It’s the question of the moment. The last 14 months made us all appreciate our vulnerability to risk- even the board of Real Madrid. How do we respond? Do we try to distribute risks and rewards fairly, or do we let the powerful insulate themselves from risk, and further dilute trust in our systems?
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Something I didn't know until just a couple of days ago, thanks to a podcast, is that the minor leagues in American baseball consist of teams entirely owned by the teams in the main competition. The minor league players (who get paid an absolutely absurd pittance) are literally employees of the big clubs, farmed off into alternative teams in other cities to develop and in the hope of being called up to actually play for the club that hired them.

    There are also independent minor leagues. They don't tend to be stable institutions, though, not having major league teams to feed into.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_baseball_league

    Minor-leaguers' pay is indeed ridiculously low. Moreover, Major League Baseball just reorganized its minor leagues, reducing the number of teams and thus pulling professional baseball entirely out of a bunch of small cities.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Popping in after several years leave because this story has me hooked.

    Welcome back @Og King of Bashan! , now I am glad I started this thread!
    It’s the question of the moment. The last 14 months made us all appreciate our vulnerability to risk- even the board of Real Madrid. How do we respond? Do we try to distribute risks and rewards fairly, or do we let the powerful insulate themselves from risk, and further dilute trust in our systems?

    This is it.

    Money talks. It already did talk loudly in football, but this turns up the volume to a whole other level.

    Are the super rich set to rule the earth?

    Can they insulate themselves from everything?



  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    @orfeo, sorry about not including hockey. You had mentioned “gridiron” and basketball, so that’s what I was focused on.

  • The rich can't control every thing. I can go round the corner and kick a ball around, two jumpers for goalposts, etc. I know Man Utd fans who will probably stop their support if this goes ahead. But we have left it late, money has already corrupted the beautiful game. Is it too late? RIP, footie.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »

    Now even the Duke of Cambridge has weighed in.

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56809771

    Of course he has. His Birmingham club haven't been invited

    I would have thought his comments were made as President of the Football Association, which post he holds.

    Of course they were !!!

  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    I think this is justifiable as a top of the programme news item. A sudden radical shake-up/threat to Britain's favourite 'religion', and I say that with some affection, is big news. And it's come as a cultural shock, too. But on the downside, it'll probably be the case now that every twist and turn of this story will be allowed to dominate the non-sports news, as the main players fight it out. And that will probably be very tedious for those of us who think football is ultimately just a game and the writing was on the wall once enormous transfer fees, fleecing the fans, and telephone number salaries became normal and 'local' clubs owed their success to buying international players.

    It actually felt quite 'normal' to have football scandal as the news' first item, for a change, after this past year!
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Ironically we may have a use for Brexit after all!

    The gvt could theoretically refuse all work visa's for non British or Irish players for the 6 British teams.

    Current British (+ Irish) players in their first team squads:
    - Arsenal = 6
    - Chelsea = 6
    - Liverpool = 12 (+1)
    - Man City = 4 + 1 loan player
    - Man Utd = 14
    - Spurs = 9 + 1 loan (+1)
  • Strong rumours that Chelsea are going to pull out. About 1000 fans outside, and Petr Cech pleading with them to let the buses in, for the game.
  • And City also.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    It appears that the SL is falling apart.
    https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56823501
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited April 20
    When all side of the House of Commons have said they are prepared to legislate to prevent this happening, it’s difficult to see how there is any mileage in the remaining clubs hanging onto the idea - at least in the U.K.

    I wonder if it might have a longer lasting effect, in terms of ownership rules for clubs etc.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    When all side of the House of Commons have said they are prepared to legislate to prevent this happening
    Not that I think it should happen, but I'd be interested to know how they could phrase legislation so that it isn't making ad hoc restrictions on how the particular clubs involved can behave.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Well, the House of Commons has form in creating ad hoc legislation on very specific actions that very specific individuals should take ...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Looks like it's over before it started
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Reportedly, Chelsea decided to withdraw after actually talking to the coach and the players.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Atletico Madrid and Barcelona leaving as well.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 20
    Arsenal reportedly out as a few minutes ago, and potentially the other 3 English clubs as well.

    EDIT: Liverpool and Tottenham both confirm withdrawal in the last couple of minutes on Twitter. It's dead.

    SECOND EDIT: And Manchester United. I can only see so many tweets at once...
  • Bet you AC Milan will be among the last.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 20
    Bet you AC Milan will be among the last.

    And Juventus and Real Madrid. The order of tumbling has been accompanied by reports about clubs that weren't especially keen on the idea in the first place, but were afraid of being left behind.

    Manchester City for example, reportedly were never that keen. But they're arguably the best team in Europe right now, so without them there was already trouble (and you lose the prospect of the Manchester derby). They and Chelsea were reportedly the last to sign on, and the first to go.

    But there also seems to be a lot of ire directed at American owners of 3 Premier League clubs (Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd) plus AC Milan. I've seen reports that Liverpool's owner has quite openly said he'd prefer the American closed system because it provides greater financial certainty.

    We've just witnessed a truly massive culture clash. Along with an apparent inability to read the rule of the English Premier League that said this wasn't allowed for the English clubs.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Bet you AC Milan will be among the last.

    And Juventus and Real Madrid.

    My assumption is that Paul Singer one of the main movers and shakers behind this.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Bet you AC Milan will be among the last.

    We've just witnessed a truly massive culture clash. Along with an apparent inability to read the rule of the English Premier League that said this wasn't allowed for the English clubs.

    I suspect they knew the rule but in their fevered imaginations thought that the EPL would fall into line in the face of overwhelming public support. :smiley:
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I suspect they knew the rule but in their fevered imaginations thought that the EPL would fall into line in the face of overwhelming public support. :smiley:
    Isn't it more that because they were the big boys with the money they assume they can always get what they want and, worse, are entitled to do so.

    Another question is whether this proposal was always dead in the water if the rules under which the big German clubs operate mean they could never have been recruited?

  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Another question is whether this proposal was always dead in the water if the rules under which the big German clubs operate mean they could never have been recruited?

    I'd say "no" as Bayern Munich and Dortmund don't have quite the pull of the others. Now if it had been Barca & Madrid then it might have been a different story.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Isn't it more that because they were the big boys with the money they assume they can always get what they want and, worse, are entitled to do.

    Yep. ‘Money talks’ vs sporting merit.

    Those owners never even attended a match. They have less interest in football than I do.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    When all side of the House of Commons have said they are prepared to legislate to prevent this happening
    Not that I think it should happen, but I'd be interested to know how they could phrase legislation so that it isn't making ad hoc restrictions on how the particular clubs involved can behave.

    I think they could simply legislate for all clubs/sports, but in such a way as to make the move impossible. I’d have thought they could model it on legislation used to avoid anti-competitive practices by other businesses.
  • Some people are asking if fan power defeated them. When I saw a 1000 fans outside Stamford Bridge, I thought that every home game will see thousands outside the grounds, and they will not like this. But there was so much opposition, including the govt and royal family, they cracked. But what an amateurish idea it was.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Bet you AC Milan will be among the last.

    We've just witnessed a truly massive culture clash. Along with an apparent inability to read the rule of the English Premier League that said this wasn't allowed for the English clubs.

    I suspect they knew the rule but in their fevered imaginations thought that the EPL would fall into line in the face of overwhelming public support. :smiley:

    I wonder if this is part of the triumph of 'data' over understanding that seems to afflict a lot of Big Corporations.

    Uber being the, well, über-example; they have never been profitable and ten minutes' understanding of the taxi market will show they can never be profitable, but they are very good at producing 'metrics' such as ridership growth and 'adjusted EBITDA profitability' that point upwards, and the venture capitalists look at those instead.

    AIUI the data does show that viewer figures for the Premier League have increased even as it gets less competitive (i.e., less variation at the top), because the quality of the teams (and therefore the matches) has got better. So, logically, as you can see from this Visio/Tableau slide, if you remove competition altogether in order to create this league in which only the highest quality teams compete ...
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Boogie: Yep. ‘Money talks’ vs sporting merit.

    The question, I put to you, is what do you think professional sport is about?
    Boogie: Those owners never even attended a match. They have less interest in football than I do.

    Why is non-attendance a problem? IMO American owners have been beneficial to Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal because they have run their clubs on a sound financial basis, and provide a much more secure base than clubs that are/ have been run by individuals with cash and a passion for the game. A third current model are clubs owned by oil-rich states seeking to improve their questionable public image for whom money is no object. One suspects there are not a few Man U fans hoping that the Glazers will sell out to such an interest. And before a shipmate eulogises over the role of fans in Germany, let it be noted that Bayern Munich, the country's most successful side, is the least-popularly influenced and controlled; and the elections of club presidents in Spain by fans at Real Madrid and Barcelona are largely responsible for their current financial problems.

    The notion that government should intervene in the organisation of football clubs, especially those which a demonstrably successful, is bizarre. One notes a suggestion that legislation should bar clubs from entering competitions only approved by UEFA, recently headed by a crook, Platini, in collusion with FIFA's super crook, Blatter, and whose European Cup is sponsored by Gazprom, is to surrender to a Mafia. Removing the option of exit is crazy.

    Clearly, the American-owned 'super' clubs have a PR disaster on their hands, but it is notable that a major head has already rolled, the miscreants have responded quickly to the crisis out of self-interest. Could we expect such prompt action from the FA, UEFA and FIFA to the problems they sweep under their carpets?


  • Well done to the Chelsea fan who created the very funny placard, "we want our cold nights in Stoke", a reference to the frequent comment, "would you fancy playing on a wet January night in Stoke? Well, yes, actually.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The Real Madrid President / Super League President also suggested that games were too long (apparently the youth of today don't have that kind of attention span).
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Removing the option of exit is crazy.




    But the ESL companies weren't looking to exit. They were looking to remain in everything except for the European inter-club competition. One way of analysing the last couple of days is that when it was made clear that if they wanted to exit then they must fully exit, then they changed their minds and decided to stay.

  • Half in, half out.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 21
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Removing the option of exit is crazy.




    But the ESL companies weren't looking to exit. They were looking to remain in everything except for the European inter-club competition. One way of analysing the last couple of days is that when it was made clear that if they wanted to exit then they must fully exit, then they changed their minds and decided to stay.

    Exactly. All this stuff about how they were taking legal action to say that Super League couldn't be prevented... at no stage was anyone really talking about stopping Super League. The response was that there would be consequences.

    For the 6 Premier League clubs, they were proposing to breach the rules of the Premier League and still play in the Premier League. It seems perfectly reasonable to tell them that wasn't an option. They were perfectly able to breach the rules of the Premier League and then leave the Premier League, but of course that wasn't a remotely palatable option.

    If your employer tells you that you can't work for them and a competitor at the same time, that's not telling you that you're forever bound to your employer. It's simply telling you what should be obvious, that certain combinations of 2 jobs are not compatible.
Sign In or Register to comment.