Jonathan Wilson: football is broken

[wub1234]

In addition, while Manchester United fans can still appreciate this issue to a great extent, in a sense a Manchester United forum is not really the ideal place to discuss this. As United are part of the elite, and will now always be so. The impact of "rich clubs...whose status at the top of the game is so systemically secure" is that there are dozens of clubs whose future is equally secure; ie. they don't have a future.

Most clubs now exist simply to provide some form of opposition for the elite (although most of the time, as the article points out, they provide very little opposition). This is one of the reasons that on my profile it states that I don't support a team, because there is no point in supporting the team that I grew up watching. Grimsby Town can never achieve anything. I think I would have drifted away anyway, but the existence of the club that I grew up supporting is just completely and utterly pointless.

But this now also applies to clubs that were big at one time. When I was growing up, Everton won the league regularly. Now they're an also-ran. Leeds were arguably the team of the 70s, and will now never get back to even being a factor at the top end of the game. West Ham averaged 58,000 this year, but will they win anything in the next 40 years? Because they haven't won anything in the last 40 years.

There are others as well, Newcastle average over 50,000, and have no chance of ever doing anything. Two of the top three clubs in the Championship in terms of attendance, Villa and Forest, have won the European Cup, yet now have no chance of playing in it ever again. You could go on and on, but all of these clubs can, at best, hope to establish themselves as a mid-table PL side, as Everton have, more likely yo-yo between the PL and the Championship, as most big clubs outside the top six do, or possibly encounter major financial difficulties, like Portsmouth (FA Cup winners), although they are climbing back to take their pointless place in the Championship once more.

At the moment, somehow attendances are holding up. Frankly, I don't know how. But, over time, are people going to continue to turn up to watch clubs that can never achieve anything? And it is still going to mean something for fans of Bayern and PSG when they're winning their 19th titles in 20 seasons?

 

[Sky1981]

In addition, while Manchester United fans can still appreciate this issue to a great extent, in a sense a Manchester United forum is not really the ideal place to discuss this. As United are part of the elite, and will now always be so. The impact of "rich clubs...whose status at the top of the game is so systemically secure" is that there are dozens of clubs whose future is equally secure; ie. they don't have a future.

Most clubs now exist simply to provide some form of opposition for the elite (although most of the time, as the article points out, they provide very little opposition). This is one of the reasons that on my profile it states that I don't support a team, because there is no point in supporting the team that I grew up watching. Grimsby Town can never achieve anything. I think I would have drifted away anyway, but the existence of the club that I grew up supporting is just completely and utterly pointless.

But this now also applies to clubs that were big at one time. When I was growing up, Everton won the league regularly. Now they're an also-ran. Leeds were arguably the team of the 70s, and will now never get back to even being a factor at the top end of the game. West Ham averaged 58,000 this year, but will they win anything in the next 40 years? Because they haven't won anything in the last 40 years.

There are others as well, Newcastle average over 50,000, and have no chance of ever doing anything. Two of the top three clubs in the Championship in terms of attendance, Villa and Forest, have won the European Cup, yet now have no chance of playing in it ever again. You could go on and on, but all of these clubs can, at best, hope to establish themselves as a mid-table PL side, as Everton have, more likely yo-yo between the PL and the Championship, as most big clubs outside the top six do, or possibly encounter major financial difficulties, like Portsmouth (FA Cup winners), although they are climbing back to take their pointless place in the Championship once more.

At the moment, somehow attendances are holding up. Frankly, I don't know how. But, over time, are people going to continue to turn up to watch clubs that can never achieve anything? And it is still going to mean something for fans of Bayern and PSG when they're winning their 19th titles in 20 seasons?

There are hundreds leagues in the world. Why epl? Because i want to see ronaldo, beckham, giggs, henry, etc.

If i want parity I'd watch cambodian league.

Stop complaining. Enjoy the high quality football being offered. It's just an entertainment at the end of the day. So what if 3-4 teams is heads above the rest? I want to see goliath and occasionally minnows making a suprise, i dont want to see 20 teams of cannon fodders.

 

[Jonno]

Football is broken but it's making everybody in connection to football rich.

Transfer fees used to steadily increase in the 1980's-1990's based on earnings from success. These days, billionaires pump money in until they are successful which rocketed the transfer fees to £200m for 1 player. Astonishing.

United used to monopolise the English league but we earned every penny from success on the pitch and off it.

You can see a super league developing in 5-10 years and the money being even more extortionate.

 

[Jeffthered]

The point about City 'being too good' is an example of the nonsense that annoys me with the coverage of football. They won the league by ONE point. How are they 'too good'. Let us see a City team with an improved Arsenal, United, Chelsea, Spurs... it was a two horse race this season. But City are hardly out-of-reach for many clubs. It is just for them to get their clubs together. United, Arsenal and Chelsea should be much closer to City and Pool'... and in time they will be. And... both City and Pool now have to maintain their respective levels.

I wish people would keep calm. City are absolutely brilliant, the domestic treble is amazing... but let's see how things evolve over the next two seasons or so.

 

[JohnnyKills]

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



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.

Yeah I agree. Everyone was fine when it was United who were suffering, now it's plucky Liverpool everyone's up in arms.

The good thing is that the media are clearly on the case now and their criticism will reach a crescendo if City keep winning. Also, it might actually persuade the various European leagues to agree on a continent-wide salary cap, which has been impossible up until now. City and PSG provide a common enemy for all the other big clubs and might persuade them to draw up some proper rules to stop the outrageous hike in wages and transfer fees.

 

[SCP]

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".

What does release clauses have to do with the quality of a league? Barcelona that had players like Kubala, Luis Suarez, Cruyff, Maradona, Romário, Koeman had no prestige?

I don’t know if you’re trolling or you really believe that but if clubs on other leagues didn’t had release clauses the situation would be worse, not better.

 

[izzydiggler]

The top teams spending the most money to win is nothing new...it’s the way of the world. For me, it’s the teams like Palace quoting £100m+ for the likes of Zaha that is killing it - just the amount of money in the game has raised the cost of watching it on TV to a ridiculously high level. Multiple subscriptions to see all the games, totalling hundreds but only seeing ‘your’ team a handful of times.

If you just take United, the team that played City cost over £400m but compared to the treble winning side 20 years ago, has the quality of entertainment and talent in the league improved since then? Not for me - plus, if we bought say Zaha, Wan-Bissaka Maguire and Sancho, according to rumours, you’re talking about £300m or so for a mixture of potential and merely ‘good’ players, which is just ridiculous. Ultimately, I’m not sure how much longer the wages and transfer fees can go up before the whole model breaks. I’ve cancelled Sky because of the rising costs and I know a few others that have too.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

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.

Is there anything in the World you guys would not blame on "PC Culture"?

 

[Keeps It tidy]

The top teams spending the most money to win is nothing new...it’s the way of the world. For me, it’s the teams like Palace quoting £100m+ for the likes of Zaha that is killing it - just the amount of money in the game has raised the cost of watching it on TV to a ridiculously high level. Multiple subscriptions to see all the games, totalling hundreds but only seeing ‘your’ team a handful of times.

If you just take United, the team that played City cost over £400m but compared to the treble winning side 20 years ago, has the quality of entertainment and talent in the league improved since then? Not for me - plus, if we bought say Zaha, Wan-Bissaka Maguire and Sancho, according to rumours, you’re talking about £300m or so for a mixture of potential and merely ‘good’ players, which is just ridiculous. Ultimately, I’m not sure how much longer the wages and transfer fees can go up before the whole model breaks. I’ve cancelled Sky because of the rising costs and I know a few others that have too.

Getting huge transfer fees is one of the ways a side like Crystal Palace can benefit from the money in Football right now.

 

[izzydiggler]

Getting huge transfer fees is one of the ways a side like Crystal Palace can benefit from the money in Football right now.

Well of course...the players, shareholders, agents etc are making a killing but the fans are paying for it.

 

[redIndianDevil]

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.

Exactly, the rotational fouling has been a constant theme in all of Guardiola's sides, without that their centre backs would get brutally exposed due to their high line especially against teams with targetmen. It's beyond ridiculous that there is never really any concerns about it, it's okay in countries like Spain where most of the teams try to play possession football, but in England a lot of teams depend on counter attacking after sitting deep.

 

[adexkola]

Exactly, the rotational fouling has been a constant theme in all of Guardiola's sides, without that their centre backs would get brutally exposed due to their high line especially against teams with targetmen. It's beyond ridiculous that there is never really any concerns about it, it's okay in countries like Spain where most of the teams try to play possession football, but in England a lot of teams depend on counter attacking after sitting deep.

They should switch up their game then. Maybe try being more pro-active on the ball instead of waiting for a mistake.

 

[Sweet Square]

Wilson is sort right but its really just the predictable outcome of global capitalism. A super league wouldn't solve anything and the end result would be outcome we are having now.


Overall I don't think its too much of problem as I watch football for a ton of different reasons. City could win the title every season for the next 10 years and I still watch United and football in general.

 

[adexkola]

Is there a way to provide a better balance between quality and competitiveness though? It seems like the financial asymmetry nowadays is skewing that balance, with more of the top players clustered at the top teams. This means the top teams now play higher quality football and accrue more points, but it also leads to 6-0 FA Cup Finals. Either this is just hyperbole because City under Guardiola are rewriting records or this is an inexorable trend due to the gap between the top six and the rest (I think it's the latter).

Spreading the top players across more teams (e.g. if City's bench players were starters at Watford etc.) might help to increase competitiveness, but that would probably require systemic changes like a salary cap or a squad cap. I'm not an expert, but I know one of the criticisms of the American sports system (unique as it is to their sports and their market) is that it rewards mediocrity though.

This is not completely true. After all, you have storied teams like the New York Knicks, the Dallas Cowboys, and others who remain laughing stocks in their sports because of bad management.

The system here allows teams that are managed well, to compete, despite their market share. The NBA finals will most likely be contested by the Milwaukee Bucks and the Golden State Warriors. Both teams wouldn't be considered blue-bloods of the sport by any metric. Both teams took a chance on young talent and developed them well, and are reaping the rewards for this. You still have to put the work in, and luck may have to fall your way a bit, but if you do that, the Knicks or Lakers won't just be able to poach off of your hard work. Because otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Keeps It tidy]

This is not completely true. After all, you have storied teams like the New York Knicks, the Dallas Cowboys, and others who remain laughing stocks in their sports because of bad management.

The system here allows teams that are managed well, to compete, despite their market share. The NBA finals will most likely be contested by the Milwaukee Bucks and the Golden State Warriors. Both teams wouldn't be considered blue-bloods of the sport by any metric. Both teams took a chance on young talent and developed them well, and are reaping the rewards for this. You still have to put the work in, and luck may have to fall your way a bit, but if you do that, the Knicks or Lakers won't just be able to poach off of your hard work. Because otherwise, what's the point?

In American sports you have teams who do not even bother to compete. Florida/Miami Marlins have tried to put a competitive team on the field for like 3.5 years of their entire existence. In MLB there is still guys who can improve teams sitting at home. In the NBA teams have realized if you are not competing for a title it is best to be as bad as possible. Magic and Pistons received some criticism for making the playoffs. And the biggest reason for parity is the draft which would not be feasible in European Football.

 

[wub1234]

There are hundreds leagues in the world. Why epl? Because i want to see ronaldo, beckham, giggs, henry, etc.

If i want parity I'd watch cambodian league.

Stop complaining. Enjoy the high quality football being offered. It's just an entertainment at the end of the day. So what if 3-4 teams is heads above the rest? I want to see goliath and occasionally minnows making a suprise, i dont want to see 20 teams of cannon fodders.

Those 3-4 teams need opposition. Why would you bother turning up to watch anyone outside of the top six?

United fans on here are sulking when they go a few years without winning the league. Most clubs now have absolutely no chance of even mounting a challenge for the league title. Ever. This will never, ever change now.

Currently, this has yet to massively impact on the number of people watching football, but I find it hard to believe that this will continue indefinitely, especially as the prices of everything involved with football continue to escalate.

I was talking to an Everton supporting taxi driver a few months back. He knows that his club will never achieve anything. The only reason he's going is because it is something that he has always done. What happens when that chain is broken?

Also, I would question whether it is high quality football. The standard of play is high, but most games are predictable or irrelevant.

 

[Angry Virginian]

In American sports you have teams who do not even bother to compete. Florida/Miami Marlins have tried to put a competitive team on the field for like 3.5 years of their entire existence. In MLB there is still guys who can improve teams sitting at home. In the NBA teams have realized if you are not competing for a title it is best to be as bad as possible. Magic and Pistons received some criticism for making the playoffs. And the biggest reason for parity is the draft which would not be feasible in European Football.

The American sport with greatest parity is American Football. That is mainly because of the hard salary cap. No team will remain uncompetitive forever unless the team is mismanaged. Also, success of a team depends largely on its quarterback. Only teams with elite quarterbacks can maintain any semblance of prolonged success.

 

[adexkola]

In American sports you have teams who do not even bother to compete. Florida/Miami Marlins have tried to put a competitive team on the field for like 3.5 years of their entire existence. In MLB there is still guys who can improve teams sitting at home. In the NBA teams have realized if you are not competing for a title it is best to be as bad as possible. Magic and Pistons received some criticism for making the playoffs. And the biggest reason for parity is the draft which would not be feasible in European Football.

Yes, there is a trough between competing for a title, and being bad enough that you can obtain good draft picks. However if you deliberately continue to suck, it hurts your bottom line as an owner. There is a financial incentive for being competitive enough that you put people in the seats. Plus, teams like the Spurs and the Patriots have continued to remain competitive, without relying on the draft, by being really good at uncovering gems where other teams don't bother to look.

The draft is infeasible in European football, yes. I don't think the solution is for football to move towards the American Sports model of the draft and a closed system. The solution should be such that talent development and shrewd financial management and recruitment, at any level of the sport and in any country, should be rewarded with a legitimate chance at competing for trophies. Success should not be bought (and I don't give a feck whether that money was "earned" or not). To that effect, egalitarian distribution of funds within countries, soft salary caps, and punitive taxes aimed to discourage transfer splurges (with exceptions for youth players and in-house talent), would go a long way to reducing inequalities in European football. And I don't see why the quality has to suffer.

 

[adexkola]

The American sport with greatest parity is American Football. That is mainly because of the hard salary cap. No team will remain uncompetitive forever unless the team is mismanaged. Also, success of a team depends largely on its quarterback. Only teams with elite quarterbacks can maintain any semblance of prolonged success.

This is true to some extent. But look at the trajectories of the Patriots and the Packers. Both have generational talent at the QB position. Only one of them has leveraged that into multiple rings. You have to do more than secure the elite quarterback. And there is still space for teams who don't have an elite quarterback to exist and do well in the league (I don't think Jared Goff is elite, but I see the Rams doing well for a few years out)

 

[Angry Virginian]

This is true to some extent. But look at the trajectories of the Patriots and the Packers. Both have generational talent at the QB position. Only one of them has leveraged that into multiple rings. You have to do more than secure the elite quarterback. And there is still space for teams who don't have an elite quarterback to exist and do well in the league (I don't think Jared Goff is elite, but I see the Rams doing well for a few years out)

One part of the prolonged success of the New England Patriots is that Tom Brady agreed to accept less money so that the team has cap money to spend on other players. His cap hit ranked 17th ($20 million) in 2017 and below quarterbacks like Derek Carr, Alex Smith, and Nick Foles. Aaron Rodgers for the Packers was at $33.5 million.

 

[Random Task]

What about Ajax then? Tottenham? Leicester?

Leicester had one good season before fading into obscurity after their squad got raided by richer clubs. That very same fate awaits Ajax this summer, they have no chance of holding on to De Ligt, Ziyech, De Jong among a host of others. Spurs haven't won the league in 50 years.

 

[Jeffthered]

As mentioned, the Premiership, week to week, is still pretty competitive... Spurs finished in the top four, but they lost or drew quite a few of their games for example. I would prefer to see this type of league.. where there is a chance every team can beat each other. Look at the Championship... every season seems amazingly competetive, because, generlly speaking, the teams are on an equal footing, on and off the pitch.. relatively speaking ok (because I know that the Villa, Leeds etc... these are big, big clubs..) but Forest, the Sheffield teams, Derby, the Baggies, the Bristol sides... these are big city football teams and they compete accordingly and it's great to watch.

You shouldn't have these huge disparities between clubs, supported by petrol money etc. It just distorts the whole system. And something has to give in the end. Look at Qatar staging the WC? How has Qatar more of a Football pedigree than say, Turkey? Or Morocco, Algeria, Egypt.. Chile, Peru etc.. the Caribbean.. those regions could combine and stage a flamin' amazing WC with the help of FIFA!! Or Australia and NZ?

It's because of money, and it sickens me. Will the grass roots game in places such as those improve, because of 'Qatar 2022' ?

It's horrible man, horrible.

 

[Angry Virginian]

Leicester had one good season before fading into obscurity after their squad got raided by richer clubs. That very same fate awaits Ajax this summer, they have no chance of holding on to De Ligt, Ziyech, De Jong among a host of others. Spurs haven't won the league in 50 years.

To add to this, Leicester is the only true dark horse team in recent history that won a major European league. The Champions League is only 13 games (6 games in group stage and 7 in knock-out stages) so it is easier for a smaller team to succeed. Both Liverpool and Spurs sacrificed domestic cup competitions in order to focus on the CL and the league. Even Zidane said that it is easier to win the CL than the league.

 

[Jeffthered]

Leicester had one good season before fading into obscurity after their squad got raided by richer clubs. That very same fate awaits Ajax this summer, they have no chance of holding on to De Ligt, Ziyech, De Jong among a host of others. Spurs haven't won the league in 50 years.

Sorry, nonsense and definitely even more nonsense. Leicester are a v decent Premiership team. That's a succes for that club, the city (of Leicester) and the Premier League. Ajax FC are one of the genuine global football icons. I don't think they will ever be accused of being an 'obscure' football club. Many clubs would only dream of adopting an 'Ajax model'.

 

[adexkola]

One part of the prolonged success of the New England Patriots is that Tom Brady agreed to accept less money so that the team has cap money to spend on other players. His cap hit ranked 17th ($20 million) in 2017 and below quarterbacks like Derek Carr, Alex Smith, and Nick Foles. Aaron Rodgers for the Packers was at $33.5 million.

That is part of it yes (key: have your franchise QB marry a supermodel).

Part of it is also the wide gulf between Belichick and recently fired McCarthy.

 

[Yorkeontop]

'greater share of overseas rights'
Now that is just disheartening to hear. Even grand old USA, land of the free market's free market has leagues that realise the pitfalls of that kind of approach to sport.

 

[Angry Virginian]

Sorry, nonsense and definitely even more nonsense. Leicester are a v decent Premiership team. That's a succes for that club, the city (of Leicester) and the Premier League. Ajax FC are one of the genuine global football icons. I don't think they will ever be accused of being an 'obscure' football club. Many clubs would only dream of adopting an 'Ajax model'.

I think that his point was that smaller teams cannot realistically look at prolonged success in the big stage. Smaller teams will lose their best players as soon as they have any semblance of success. Football player contracts do not mean much for smaller teams as big clubs will continue to entice their best players to break the contracts. Leicester lost Kante right away after winning the PL (and other players a year after). Spurs lost Bale, Modric, Berbatov, Carrick, etc as soon as it looked like we were on to something (probably Eriksen this year too).

The Ajax model is to find and develop young players in hope that somehow the players will all have a big year together and achieve something big before losing all their best players and restart again. This is also true with other smaller teams like Dortmund and Spurs.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Leicester had one good season before fading into obscurity after their squad got raided by richer clubs. That very same fate awaits Ajax this summer, they have no chance of holding on to De Ligt, Ziyech, De Jong among a host of others. Spurs haven't won the league in 50 years.

They're about to contest the CL final. If that isn't disrupting the establishment, I don't know what is.

 

[RochaRoja]

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.

And were far more tedious to watch with their backpass tactics. So much so that the rules of the game were adapted to outlaw it.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Sorry, nonsense and definitely even more nonsense. Leicester are a v decent Premiership team. That's a succes for that club, the city (of Leicester) and the Premier League. Ajax FC are one of the genuine global football icons. I don't think they will ever be accused of being an 'obscure' football club. Many clubs would only dream of adopting an 'Ajax model'.

Yep, completely agree.

At the end of the day, it's inevitable that there'll be one or two big clubs in each country. Some clubs just come from bigger cities, with bigger catchment areas. That's basic demographics.

Those clubs have a natural advantage, but that doesn't mean smaller clubs can't compete. Liverpool have never been the biggest club in England but they dominated for 20 years. Deportivo, Valencia and Atletico have all had great periods in Spain, likewise Lyon and Monaco in France.

Football has never been more slanted towards the big clubs than it is now and that's purely down to the money that's come in. If we want to level things up, the answer isn't to give clubs even more money.

 

[Jeffthered]

I think that his point was that smaller teams cannot realistically look at prolonged success in the big stage. Smaller teams will lose their best players as soon as they have any semblance of success. Football player contracts do not mean much for smaller teams as big clubs will continue to entice their best players to break the contracts. Leicester lost Kante right away after winning the PL (and other players a year after). Spurs lost Bale, Modric, Berbatov, Carrick, etc as soon as it looked like we were on to something (probably Eriksen this year too).

The Ajax model is to find and develop young players in hope that somehow the players will all have a big year together and achieve something big before losing all their best players and restart again. This is also true with other smaller teams like Dortmund and Spurs.

I don't think there is too much wrong with players wishing to play for other, often bigger teams who may present more opportunities. That's natural, and happens in business across both the public and private sector.

What I wish to see though, is the possibility for teams, clubs to consistently and genuinely challenge that status quo, and keep their identity... Villareal produced a wonderful team for a few seasons... Den Haag, Palermo have been amazing in recent years.... I love the Atletico Bilbao model, with its emphasis on players from the Basque region.. that's wonderful. You think that club is irrelevant to the fans?

Leicester proved what a small-ish club can do with a great team spirit, hungry, talented players, and a supportive, experienced manager. They took advantage of a Premiership when the 'giants' were all at different stages of transition.

 

[RochaRoja]

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.

I used to like Wilson but he’s really become a boring old “it was better in my day” yer da type over the past few years.

 

[jeff gurr]

The top teams spending the most money to win is nothing new...it’s the way of the world. For me, it’s the teams like Palace quoting £100m+ for the likes of Zaha that is killing it - just the amount of money in the game has raised the cost of watching it on TV to a ridiculously high level. Multiple subscriptions to see all the games, totalling hundreds but only seeing ‘your’ team a handful of times.

If you just take United, the team that played City cost over £400m but compared to the treble winning side 20 years ago, has the quality of entertainment and talent in the league improved since then? Not for me - plus, if we bought say Zaha, Wan-Bissaka Maguire and Sancho, according to rumours, you’re talking about £300m or so for a mixture of potential and merely ‘good’ players, which is just ridiculous. Ultimately, I’m not sure how much longer the wages and transfer fees can go up before the whole model breaks. I’ve cancelled Sky because of the rising costs and I know a few others that have too.

I disagree. If i'm selling my car I will start off high and let the buyer talk me down. The problem is clubs being willing to pay ridiculous money for the likes of Zaha. We see it here at the Cafe as posters talk about buying other teams top players assuming that every player is available as long as the right amount of money is offered.
Top clubs don't bring very many players through the academy because it's easier to buy proven players from the likes of Crystal Palace & Fulham.

 

[RochaRoja]

Nice literary choice there. Very vivid and interesting.

Monaco is an ironic choice of example though as it’s literally a tiny club with no fans backed by a wealthy sovereign state AND foreign oil money.

 

[Random Task]

Sorry, nonsense and definitely even more nonsense. Leicester are a v decent Premiership team. That's a succes for that club, the city (of Leicester) and the Premier League. Ajax FC are one of the genuine global football icons. I don't think they will ever be accused of being an 'obscure' football club. Many clubs would only dream of adopting an 'Ajax model'.

You're missing the point.

Leicester won the league a few seasons back, why weren't they fighting it out with City last season or the season before that? Because they were unable to hold on to the players that won them that league title. Worse still, they didn't have the funds available, or the appeal for that matter, to replace those they lost with equal or indeed a better standard of player. The Ajax model is not sustainable for the same reasons.

Neither of those clubs are rich enough to compete (long-term) with the might of Europe, those of considerably higher stature and wealth. City, PSG and Chelsea were once of similar wealth and stature to Ajax and Leicester before they got brought out by rich and powerful owners. Look at them now.

In the modern game, money is King.

 

[Random Task]

They're about to contest the CL final. If that isn't disrupting the establishment, I don't know what is.

Let's be absolutely honest with ourselves. Even if Spurs win the CL this year, what are the chances of them following it up next season or challenging City for the domestic title?

We both know the answer.

 

[RochaRoja]

That was literally a lot better.

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

Yeah, who wants excellence when they can watch two clueless sides barely string a pass together for 90 minutes.

Any neutral who honestly says they enjoyed that game or can remember anything other than the goal is lying. It was total dross.

 

[RochaRoja]

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.

This is just nostalgia. There are no fewer “names” now than back in the 90s.

If anything, in England there’s more top quality spread around the clubs now than there was back then.

 

[Aloysius's Back 3]

Neymar changed it due to player power.

I don't think the transfer fee's are the problem but a wage cap should be placed instead.

That way the power goes more in to the clubs agreement with each other than purely just trying to entice a player with higher wages first.

I think it's easier to spread a wage cap world wide than ask different clubs which are merely businesses to stop spreading high levels of cash to other businesses for their players.

 

[Random Task]

To add to this, Leicester is the only true dark horse team in recent history that won a major European league. The Champions League is only 13 games (6 games in group stage and 7 in knock-out stages) so it is easier for a smaller team to succeed. Both Liverpool and Spurs sacrificed domestic cup competitions in order to focus on the CL and the league. Even Zidane said that it is easier to win the CL than the league.

That's a rather telling statement in itself.