Jonathan Wilson: football is broken

[Mb194dc]

It's been deliberately designed like this. If / when the TV money starts drying up there will be a will to change.

There are lots of simple solutions. Team salary cap and abolishing transfer fees for one. Most solutions that involve making football a sporting rather than economic competition also would involve scrapping the pyramid. No chance big clubs agree if good chance they'll be relegated eventually.

 

[Treble]

So you think there should be more oil billionaires in football? That's the way to make things more competitive?

Given the current framework, the only solution is to have more big investors, more sugar/oil daddies. The other solution is to change the framework in order to make the playing field more even. But that will be at the expense of the likes of Real, Barca, United, Bayern, Juventus...It's not realistic to happen. Football is huge business and radical changes of the framework are unlikely to happen.

 

[JPRouve]

So you think there should be more oil billionaires in football? That's the way to make things more competitive?

That's how football used to be more competitive, in the past clubs were sponsored by rich men/women. From Berlusconi, Agnelli or even at smaller scale someone like Nicollin. What has "killed" football is the business mentality and the fact that many people embraced the idea of foot business, making profit, as it was sold by the PL, they created a monster that was fully grown with FFP.

 

[Treble]

Think the EPL is about to become far better than the other leagues because it's much more popular in the world and thus much richer. I expect the top 6 to become a top 8 within 5 years and then a top 10 within 15 years. The EPL will dwarf the other leagues financially and quality wise and the big boys from them will be desperate for a Super League in order to survive as big boys in Europe, and not only domestically.

 

[Esquire]

It's been trending in this direction for decades. Having non-champions in the so called Champions League has turned that competition into a VIP club for the rich kids, and has now spilled into the domestic competitions. We are at a point now where even the teams that dominate the top 5 leagues can't compete with England and the two teams from Spain. Yes, there will always be an Ajax or Monaco that sneaks in before they are dismembered and their organs sold to the rich.

People can say whatever they want about the quality of football, but I don't find 70% possession 6-0 games entertaining. Nor do I find it entertaining when trophies are decided with such results as City vs Huddersfield 5-1, City vs Watford 6-0, Bayern vs Frankfurt 6-0, etc. And by the way, these are the dramatic season finishes.

But the owners of the world will never make a move in favor of greater participation and equality of opportunity. Quite the contrary.

But the sports leagues that are exciting from a competition perspective and which allows for truly horrible teams to get better are the ones with salary caps. For example NBA and NFL.

But I suspect you are right football is distinct in the sense that we have nations involved as owners and too many elite clubs resistant to change because they have no economic incentives driving them to change.

 

[Nevilles.Wear.Prada]

Where was jonthan when real madrid steam rolled CL thrice in a row?
Where was UEFA when napoli won it three years in a row?
(read it in King Theoden voice)

 

[redshaw]

Not sure a super league is the answer as Juve for example would go from winning the league to not winning anything unless they get bought by an oil state.

PSG is a good example of what's wrong there, not an example of a super league being required. It's like buying an F1 car to beat some hot hatchbacks, what's the point. To me the answer for the health of the game is to stop the PSG thing from happening.

We shouldn't be throwing away the leagues and a century or centuries of history just because somewhere decides to buy PSG.

Each league has its story to tell. The Italian league has its own self made problems that will get fixed, Juve have come out the collapse well.

 

[In Rainbows]

Not sure a super league is the answer as Juve for example would go from winning the league to not winning anything unless they get bought by an oil state.

PSG is a good example of what's wrong there, not an example of a super league being required. It's like buying an F1 car to beat some hot hatchbacks, what's the point. To me the answer for the health of the game is to stop the PSG thing from happening.

We shouldn't be throwing away the leagues and a century or centuries of history just because somewhere decides to buy PSG.

Each league has its story to tell. The Italian league has its own self made problems that will get fixed, Juve have come out the collapse well.

The idea would be that Juve would now get more money from the super league than they do now, thus allowing them to spend as much as other clubs. However, the same could be said for the Milan clubs for example.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Both Germany and England were decided on the last matchday. Exciting enough for me.

Yes some clubs are mega rich and much stronger than others. That's been the case since the early 2000s. If anything, because of these take overs some of the classical power houses have to reinvent themselves to stay relevant. Dont see the problem really.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Think the EPL is about to become far better than the other leagues because it's much more popular in the world and thus much richer. I expect the top 6 to become a top 8 within 5 years and then a top 10 within 15 years. The EPL will dwarf the other leagues financially and quality wise and the big boys from them will be desperate for a Super League in order to survive as big boys in Europe, and not only domestically.

Technically how 'rich' the PL is has very little to do with its global fanbase. It's due to the domestic TV deals which trump those in other leagues. The rights to the PL in the US for example were peanuts compared to the UK deals.

 

[Treble]

Technically how 'rich' the PL is has very little to do with its global fanbase. It's due to the domestic TV deals which trump those in other leagues. The rights to the PL in the US for example were peanuts compared to the UK deals.

This will change soon, imo. The more watchable a league is, the richer it will be. They will find instruments to make the large PL fanbase all over the world to count in financial terms.

 

[Treble]

Liverpool won 10 league titles, 4 European Cups and 6 domestic cups from 1976 to 1990 - 20 trophies overall (without counting 9 FA Community/Charity Shield cups). There will always be great teams dominating football for a decade or two. Not even Real has dominated domestic football like Liverpool did back in the 70's and 80's. And Liverpool would have dominated in England/Europe far longer if some of their fans weren't vile dickheads.

 

[diarm]

If there is to be a Super League, teams like City and PSG shouldn't be included.

Not only because they aren't great clubs and bring little to the table aside from their owners money, but because it would serve as a deterrent to other billionaires looking to acquire football clubs as their playthings.

Imagine City stinking up a Super League of the cream of European football history with their pathetic attendances and the few that did turn up booing the anthem because of their perceived injustice that the league was levelling the playing field.

Let the Sheikh's be Kings of the second tier until they get bored and feck off for good.

 

[JPRouve]

Liverpool won 10 PL titles, 4 European Cups and 6 domestic cups from 1976 to 1990 - 20 trophies overall (without counting 9 FA Community/Charity Shield cups). There will always be great teams dominating football for a decade or two. Not even Real has dominated domestic football like Liverpool did back in the 70's and 80's. And Liverpool would have dominated in England/Europe far longer if some of their fans weren't vile dickheads.

Particularly due to the fact that big clubs have the means to keep their players which means that every time that one of these club build a WC backbone, even on the cheap, they dominate for roughly a decade. In sport the most critical thing is to keep your best players, if you can do that you are going to dominate and the reality is that only a handful of clubs are able to do it in any given decade. An other point that I noticed, maybe people will like to check, teams that dominate are in the largest European cities, it's not a coincidence.

 

[CaptainAvengers]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ric-Cantona-Paul-Gascoigne-left-football.html

This is the problem, no characters coming through anymore, all PC controlled bollocks because of Twitter.

You struggle to name 10 World Class players apart from Messi and Ronaldo these days.. and the best players are all monopolised at the same clubs where as 20 years ago it was more evenly spread out.

Remember the good times.

Letting the elite and rich football clubs have their "Super League" might be the best next natural evolution step to take the game of football. So the other clubs can be like they was 20 years ago competing evenly and the elite clubs can have their own ball to play by themselves. Simples.

 

[CaptainAvengers]

Be careful what you wish for when you ask for the wheel to be broken

Exactly.. don't end up as the same. Show mercy on the smaller, poorer clubs which are the lifeblood of our fantastic sport/communities.

 

[Gio]

This is bullshit though.

Real won the European Cup 5 times in a row 60 years ago and scored 7 (!) goals in the 1960 final.

Cruyff's Ajax dominated the Dutch league and Europe, same with Beckenbauer's Bayern. United won 8 of the first 11 PL titles. Barca won 7 of the last 10 titles in La Liga.

The reason why Juventus and Bayern dominate their leagues to that extent is down to lack of massive investments in other clubs, of sugar/oil daddies. Imagine the PL without Blackburn, Chelsea and City: United would have won 16 of the first 20 titles, and Arsenal the other 4. That would be worse than Germany, Italy and France. The issue with the big money in football is much more complex than Wilson seems to realise. The problem of the Bundesliga and Serie A is the lack of enough money/invsetments, not too much money.

It's bang on - polarisation is systemic in both the domestic and continental games. Look at the points totals required to win the majority of leagues now compared to 20 years ago. The 75-80 point range was often title-winning for many major European leagues. It's now 90+ to have a shot at the title. That reflects polarisation within domestic games. As great as the Cruyff and Beckenbauer sides were, they never dominated their domestic game to the same extended state as the current Bayern side do, as Juventus do in Italy or PSG do in France. It's systemic dominance because those Ajax and Bayern teams had a natural rise and fall: they didn't just replace the fading stars with new ones who were just as good due to their massive advantage in resources over the rest of the league. They had three or four years at the top and then someone else had a turn. At a European level the Champions League has systematically reinforced those financial advantages and concentrated the power in the hands of the big four leagues. The 30 teams in the last 15 Champions League finals have come from those 4 countries alone. From 1990-2004 it was 8 countries, 9 from 1975-1989, and 9 from 1960-1974. The game is clearly getting more polarised.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Sorry but that is just pure navel gazing by Jonathan Wilson.

There isn't anything factually wrong with his article. But was he playing the purveyor of football when Chelsea were dominating with oil money? Was he hand wringing when United or Liverpool won all before them.

Sentences like "they have not beaten them in 30 years" are pointless. City and Watford have played each other only 20 or fewer times. There was a gap of a decade in one instance. Even if they beat them the once he'd dismiss that.

Football has always been played on an unequal playing field. If UEFA had the balls to fine City they would but they don't. Money talks.

Sooner or later as history shows City will dry up. Another club will be taken over by a billionaire and distort the game.

 

[Gio]

I’ll take quality football over “competitiveness” any day.

Remember that competitive cup final between Portsmouth and Cardiff? That’s what Jonathan Wilson thinks is better than Saturday’s game.

Ideally you want both though. Certainly from a neutral perspective the Spanish league was at its most entertaining when the league was getting won with lower points totals. Look at 1999/00, the top 6 separated by 8 points and the league won with a paltry 69 points. And that competitiveness didn't really come at the price of quality: the same season Spain provided three of the four Champions League semi-finalists. The game probably had a sweet spot then, where the top sides struggled to dominate league and European football at the same time because their squads weren't quite as stacked and they hadn't harvested their rivals of all their best players.

 

[crossy1686]

Tired of Wilson bringing this up every time he gets on a podcast or is allowed to write an article about whats on his mind.

Yes, rich clubs buy the best players, yes, they win more trophies because of that but teams don't have to fecking sell anymore. If their owners didn't care about making £60m on one player they could build a team around said player.

Look at Palace, they've got two quality players and have literally priced everyone out with their valuation. If they keep those to this summer and recruit smart they're in with a shout of getting a Europa spot next year.

Tottenham are the same. They were shit for a long time but then Levy stopped selling players unless records were broken.

It depends largely on your boards ambitions.

I get that with the internet now and mobile phones having camera's on them, a talent rarely goes unnoticed and usually gets snapped up before they're 20, but what's stopping a club like West Ham planting some trees in a country like Brazil? Go over, start an academy, sponsor some clubs and let everyone know you're offering Brazilian players inroads to the PL. Fecking nothing.

Unfortunately for Wilson, there will never be a situation where all clubs in all the world are on level pegging. There will never be a situation where all 20 teams in the PL have players of similar qualities and could win the PL and don't deserve to be relegated. There will always be hierarchy and prestige due to club history anyway.

I guess this is what it's like to be a Sunderland fan with nothing to look forward to...

 

[Manchester Dan]

I get the sentiment but City won by 1 point. The league has been far less competitive over the last 2 decades for spells than it is today. You can’t say with any real confidence that City will win the League next year either, such is the competition. Some of the other leagues are broken but they have been for years.

 

[mitchmouse]

that said, in the not-too-distant past, we dominated possession and lost! More than once!

 

[Kemizee]

It's been trending in this direction for decades. Having non-champions in the so called Champions League has turned that competition into a VIP club for the rich kids, and has now spilled into the domestic competitions. We are at a point now where even the teams that dominate the top 5 leagues can't compete with England and the two teams from Spain. Yes, there will always be an Ajax or Monaco that sneaks in before they are dismembered and their organs sold to the rich.

People can say whatever they want about the quality of football, but I don't find 70% possession 6-0 games entertaining. Nor do I find it entertaining when trophies are decided with such results as City vs Huddersfield 5-1, City vs Watford 6-0, Bayern vs Frankfurt 6-0, etc. And by the way, these are the dramatic season finishes.

But the owners of the world will never make a move in favor of greater participation and equality of opportunity. Quite the contrary.

Nice literary choice there. Very vivid and interesting.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Nice literary choice there. Very vivid and interesting.

Yeah I enjoyed it too.

 

[SER19]

I get the sentiment but City won by 1 point. The league has been far less competitive over the last 2 decades for spells than it is today. You can’t say with any real confidence that City will win the League next year either, such is the competition. Some of the other leagues are broken but they have been for years.

No they coasted it last season and got 98 this season holding off a freak Liverpool season that was made possible by extreme spending by them to even try keep in touch. They breezed to 2 domestic cups with a couple of scares. And they have beaten so many teams so easily its barely the same sport as Wilson says. And good teams too. In recent years Watford Liverpool schalke shaktar just pissed apart. Its a fair reflection of how much they're out spending teams. You're second string is stronger than everybody else's means you absolutely should be winning the league most years and cups. 200m plus on full backs says enough

 

[Random Task]

So you think there should be more oil billionaires in football? That's the way to make things more competitive?

Aside from a European Super League, where the rich and powerful clubs can battle it out amongst themselves, the only feasible way for the smaller clubs to close the gap on the bigger clubs is to get bankrolled by a billionaire.

City are essentially unstoppable at this point, as are PSG.

 

[Buster15]

This is bullshit though.

Real won the European Cup 5 times in a row 60 years ago and scored 7 (!) goals in the 1960 final.

Cruyff's Ajax dominated the Dutch league and Europe, same with Beckenbauer's Bayern. United won 8 of the first 11 PL titles. Barca won 7 of the last 10 titles in La Liga.

The reason why Juventus and Bayern dominate their leagues to that extent is down to lack of massive investments in other clubs, of sugar/oil daddies. Imagine the PL without Blackburn, Chelsea and City: United would have won 16 of the first 20 titles, and Arsenal the other 4. That would be worse than Germany, Italy and France. The issue with the big money in football is much more complex than Wilson seems to realise. The problem of the Bundesliga and Serie A is the lack of enough money/invsetments, not too much money.

Good thoughtful comment.
This is just typical sensationalist journalism aimed solely to grab the headlines and sell papers.

Some people say that money is killing the game while others accept that money chases money.
Big businesses make investment decisions based upon return on investment criterion.
They will continue to invest while it makes good business sense and while the PL remains a good place to invest.

 

[arthurka]

Yeah i read that earlier. Was a good article, probably about a decade late but hard to argue the point. I dont think Bayern and Juventus etc would be that keen on being in a league with City and PSG though. Salary caps or some such would be my prefered solution. Or just for the whole financial side to crash and burn spectacularly to reset things a bit and push the likes of the Glazers and the City despots out of the game.

Salary cap wont do anything, City pay players and agents under the table so a salary cap doesnt do anything.

 

[crossy1686]

I get the sentiment but City won by 1 point. The league has been far less competitive over the last 2 decades for spells than it is today. You can’t say with any real confidence that City will win the League next year either, such is the competition. Some of the other leagues are broken but they have been for years.

Non of the leagues are broken, especially the PL.

Germany has had different winners over the last 10 years. Dortmund making a resurgence and a few others coming close.

Juventus were literally relegated but managed to get promoted and win the league again, that isn't their fault, it's the fault of the other clubs in Serie A who couldn't get their shit together and take advantage of that while they were floundering in Serie B. It's not Juventus' fault Milan, Inter, Roma and Lazio are run by muppets.

France is a bang average league that no one talked about until Platini came in to UEFA and started dishing out CL spots. The fact they have an mega-rich club there that isn't allowed to spend it's money is a farce. That league will also never develop a following outside of France because of PSG. Try selling that package to subscribers. PSG won't last long and the league will level out again, look at Holland. Ajax were head and shoulders above the rest in the 90's, it's only now they've started making a come back.

Spain has always been a two horse race in some capacity, Barcelona weren't even relevant until the 90's, before then they had no European heritage. Madrid are funded by the government but have always bought well. The La Liga model is the most broken one, they split the TV money unevenly which gives the smaller teams no chance and they put release clauses in contracts. Both Barcelona and Madrid are looking to rebuild over the next couple of years though so nows the chance for someone else to make inroads in the league. They won't though, they'll all continue to feck things up and the status quo will stay the same.

The title has changed hands multiple times in the PL over the last 10 years. It's the most competitive league in the world. City have run away with it in the last couple of years but the possession stat is bollocks. Having 70% possession in most of your games doesn't exactly tell the story of the match, a team could have most of that possession between their own backline. If you know a team is going to do that then you might as well let them and hit them on the break, it's daft to say that possession shows the state of the modern game when we've literally seen more and more teams say to possession hungry teams "you have the ball, we'll hurt you on set pieces and counters instead".

 

[Wumminator]

I’ll take quality football over “competitiveness” any day.

Remember that competitive cup final between Portsmouth and Cardiff? That’s what Jonathan Wilson thinks is better than Saturday’s game.

That was literally a lot better.

What kind of weirdo wants to see a team win 6-0?

 

[Sky1981]

Manchester united dominated the epl for 26 years nobody raises anything. City won two in a row and you want a financial crash and burn?

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Manchester united dominated the epl for 26 years nobody raises anything. City won two in a row and you want a financial crash and burn?

Yes. Burn it all and start again.

Vive la footballing revolution. Top level football is broken.

 

[VeevaVee]

You struggle to name 10 World Class players apart from Messi and Ronaldo these days.. and the best players are all monopolised at the same clubs where as 20 years ago it was more evenly spread out.

This is definitely a thing. There used to be teams full of idols, mostly because they were good, at least first and foremost. Loads of names you could reel off for each position. Teams full of them. They got there from continuously working and respecting the managers and fans.
I don't think it's to do with Twitter or the like but I do think it's because there's too much power in the hands of the players now. Now it seems like they're not knuckling down once they've 'made it'. There seems to be no peak now. Players get excuses made for them up until 26, and by 28 people say they're getting too old. In reality it seems more like they're not cracking on from 20 onwards to me. I can't help but think it's agents, who have come to the forefront even more with sugar daddy clubs around.

On top of that, prices are mental now. We sold Ronaldo for so much because he was the best player in the world. Now players who might one day be pretty good are going for more. Clubs without sugar daddies have to try and match it all, which makes prices go further out of reach from the working class, and wages higher and higher, which again goes back to the first point.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Given the current framework, the only solution is to have more big investors, more sugar/oil daddies. The other solution is to change the framework in order to make the playing field more even. But that will be at the expense of the likes of Real, Barca, United, Bayern, Juventus...It's not realistic to happen. Football is huge business and radical changes of the framework are unlikely to happen.

Look, I get what you're saying and it's an interesting post, but think you're approaching it the wrong way.

To take your example of United and Arsenal, neither of those two clubs had had any recent success before they started to dominate. United hadn't won the league for 26 years before Fergie won his first title; Arsenal had only won three league titles in 27 years before Wenger claimed his first. It wasn't like they were dominating in perpetuity.

Why did they start to dominate? In United's case, they built a brilliant youth academy and sprinkled some high-quality bargains (Cantona, Schmeichel, Kanchelskis) on top. Arsenal bought some high-profile players but the real secret was their knowledge of the untapped French market. In neither case did they blow anyone out of the water financially.

Surely any club could have copied these models, right? But no, instead of pursuing long-term success the other big clubs (Newcastle, Leeds, Chelsea in the late 90s) threw money at big-name signings and got themselves into financial trouble. Money did nothing to improve their situation.

If you look at the other major leagues, it's true that one or two clubs tend to dominate. But money has only exacerbated that problem; just look at Milan when they were bankrolled by Berlusconi, or PSG under the Qatari regime. When one club has money, it's even less likely that a club like Monaco will burst through.

Even if a billionaire financier comes in and makes things more competitive, it's a bit of a fool's paradise. City have upset the established order but they've done so in a way that's totally contrary to the spirit of the competition. It's a bit like complaining about Usain Bolt's dominance of the 100m and proposing that all the other runners take steroids to close the gap.

It's still very much possible to challenge the elite without spending a fortune - just look at the CL final, and indeed the semi-finals. Look at Leicester and Atletico Madrid. If there were no sugar daddies in football these clubs would have more of a chance, not less.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Aside from a European Super League, where the rich and powerful clubs can battle it out amongst themselves, the only feasible way for the smaller clubs to close the gap on the bigger clubs is to get bankrolled by a billionaire.

City are essentially unstoppable at this point, as are PSG.

What about Ajax then? Tottenham? Leicester?

 

[matt10000]

So, are you saying that it's Watford's fault some rich guy hasn't taken a fancy to them?

Elton John took a fancy to them but even his wealth would only buy a couple of players in todays market!

 

[Jeffthered]

Way back in 1988 Berlusconi changed the format of the European Cup, to ensure that the 'top sides' (most marketable...) would remain in the competition until the latter stages, by introducing the Champions League.

Football, to me, is pretty much dead, which is sad, and why Leicester's achievement was the best thing that happened to the Premiership in many ways.

The annoying this is that the whole 'transfer / Financial Fair Play' initiative was introduce to address much of this. And what difference has that made exactly?

Neymar, Couthino, MBappe, Sanchez salary etc... truly, truly, truly ridiculous sums of money, and for what? Who benefits?

It's rather sickening if one really thinks about it.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I don't think Guardiola's team is that strong, if the referees start doing their jobs and start yellow carding the ridiculous rotational fouling to stop counters, the possession system can be easily broken.

I'm going off track from the OP but the David Silva foul in the FA cup final should have been a red card. It was clear and obvious his only intention was to stop the counter attack. From the freekick Watford had (which is meant to be an advantage to them) City countered and the game was over. It happens all the time with City. Their tactical fouling is cheating, no other word for it.

 

[wub1234]

I completely agree with the article, and have said so myself on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution. Salary caps can't work because they would have to be agreed across multiple countries, with countless stakeholders. Even if this could be achieved, it would be extremely unlikely to stand up legally. The reason this system works within, for example, the NFL is that all good players want to play in the NFL, so there is a self-contained system.

The only possible solution would be for some mass boycott of football to occur, so that clubs and media companies were hurt financially. It is extremely hard to see this happening.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

It's a good article, it this line bugs me

This is City’s problem. They are too good – and that has brought to the surface concerns about their ownership and financing that perhaps should have been more prominent earlier.

This has been complained about plenty since the beginning. Somehow, where they got their cash from didn't seem to matter too much when they were pipping United to titles. 10 years later its suddenly a problem.