Bayern couldn't join the super league because of its 50/1 ownership and PSG couldn't join because of the Qatar world cup, neither teams are saints.
Last edited:
Bayern and PSG
- Thread starter UnofficialDevil
- Start date
but but but 50 +1 just means they didn't do it because they knew their fans didn't want it. That's not some lame excuse not to do it.
(And to be fair to PSG they didn't do it either, and neither did OM etc. whether the world cup hypothesis holds up we'll never know)
(And to be fair to PSG they didn't do it either, and neither did OM etc. whether the world cup hypothesis holds up we'll never know)
The fact that Bayern have the 50+1 is a feature that makes them great. It is designed to stop crap like the ESL that doesn’t take into account the fans’ interests. It worked!
We don’t need saints. We need good regulation and rules.
We don’t need saints. We need good regulation and rules.
From the way your post reads I can tell you are pissed off reading positive things about them across social media and this was your only outlet. It's pretty great.
No shit, what beIN had done to football broadcasting in the middle east has been absolutely criminal for years.
I sincerely believe that KHR didn't wanna sign up for this regardless. He's a man of football first and foremost and a busniessman second, i may be naive but i really do believe that he cares about football tradition and that performances should be rewarded over how many likes you got on facebook.
No I'm not pissed off at all.
I'm just saying.
You're just saying that Bayern refused to do it because they have a model that is proven to work and prevent the things we don't want? What's your point? That we should all aspire to be like Bayern? Cause thats how I'm seeing the situation.
Hear hear.
PSG, fine, that's down to politics. With the German clubs though it's down to them being run in a way that made this unacceptable. That's something they should be praised for, not something that disqualifies them from praise.
That they couldn't have joined even if they wanted to. And yes I think it's a good model.
Exactly, it's why Bayerns model and German clubs like them should be brought into England. No, it's not necessarily the best in terms of making money, but it ensures that the clubs will forever belong to the fans. And thats what football is about and needs to go back to being about.
But anyway, it pretty much makes Bayern the saviors of football. A football giant who operates successfully, current holders of the CL, who don't spend beyond their means and can't ever sell out because of the model. What's not to like or respect.
I agree. Maybe my post came across wrong. I was saying that the 49% percent Audi or Adidas or whoever owns them probably wouldn't have said no. It was the 50/1 ownership that prevented it.
Bayern have their own monopoly and at best duopoly in Germany. They are the status quo in their country and it's not going to stop any time soon because there's not enough revenue sharing like PL's domestic broadcast deals or even parachute payments to relegated teams to support the Bundesliga table.
Also, here's this article...published exactly 20 days ago about the formal backlash of said European giants PSG and Bayern...who are totally conflicted in this. None of the clubs top executives, UEFA, etc. can be called saviors or take a moral high-ground. Players, coaches, and fans specifically as it relates to European competitions (sorry Everton and those perennial mid-table clubs) were left out in the cold. And that's because it was a massive posturing exercise by these financial giants of European football against UEFA.
https://www.si.com/soccer/2021/03/31/champions-league-future-format-expansion-swiss-system-criticism
" A formal announcement had been expected on Wednesday, but that has now been pushed back until April 19, largely because a small group of the super-rich clubs—understood to be a coalition of the Spanish sides and at least two clubs with U.S. owners—has rejected UEFA's proposal for a 50-50 share in a joint venture that would control the commercial rights of the Champions League. That, in turn, has created a backlash from other members of the European Clubs Association (ECA), most notably Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain. But whoever actually is in charge, nobody expects anything other than agreement on the adoption of the Swiss model. "
Also, here's this article...published exactly 20 days ago about the formal backlash of said European giants PSG and Bayern...who are totally conflicted in this. None of the clubs top executives, UEFA, etc. can be called saviors or take a moral high-ground. Players, coaches, and fans specifically as it relates to European competitions (sorry Everton and those perennial mid-table clubs) were left out in the cold. And that's because it was a massive posturing exercise by these financial giants of European football against UEFA.
https://www.si.com/soccer/2021/03/31/champions-league-future-format-expansion-swiss-system-criticism
" A formal announcement had been expected on Wednesday, but that has now been pushed back until April 19, largely because a small group of the super-rich clubs—understood to be a coalition of the Spanish sides and at least two clubs with U.S. owners—has rejected UEFA's proposal for a 50-50 share in a joint venture that would control the commercial rights of the Champions League. That, in turn, has created a backlash from other members of the European Clubs Association (ECA), most notably Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain. But whoever actually is in charge, nobody expects anything other than agreement on the adoption of the Swiss model. "
Rummenigge is also in cahoots with Qatar.
No shit, Qatar sponsors the club.
We can throw all the stones we want, but Bayern and PSG look much better right now than any of the Super League deserters, no matter what the reasoning behind their refusal to join is.
So KHR actually does what his fans expected him to?
How's that a bad thing?
How's that a bad thing?
I think he's saying, praise and replicate their model not their CEOs/Chairmen who I'm assuming can't just disband the structure in move to seek more power/money.
Yea well, a club also consists of its members, not just of its officials. 50+1 meant that the officials would not be able to overrule its members - who are the essential part of the club. It's not just club officials who make a club, but also its members, which means actions taken by the club officials and or the members reflects on the club itself either way. Which means Bayern - also as a club and in this case, even its officials - did the right thing. Isn't that obvious? Just becaues Rummenigge might have wanted a super league in the first place doesn't mean that the club itself did not reject it! The club is just more than just KHR.
Barcelona or Real fans indirectly run the club with their voting rights. They have no owners, they are associations run by officials elected for it. Portuguese clubs are similarly run. In that aspect they are more democratic than Bayern, whose presidents are chosen by corporations, who despite not owning a majority of the club exert practical control over it.
All this fawning over the 50+1 rule as a cause for this rejection is a bit pathetic. I think the rule is great for their league, but in practice it ultimately seems more akin to protectionism than "fan rule".
I think the rejecting clubs were a bit smarter and foresaw this failure, or the people running it simply didn't want it. But if they did, I doubt the 50+1 rule would avert it. Ultimately it's a league rule, it isn't more effective than an FA banning a club, which would probably have happened elsewhere had the SL gone forward.
All this fawning over the 50+1 rule as a cause for this rejection is a bit pathetic. I think the rule is great for their league, but in practice it ultimately seems more akin to protectionism than "fan rule".
I think the rejecting clubs were a bit smarter and foresaw this failure, or the people running it simply didn't want it. But if they did, I doubt the 50+1 rule would avert it. Ultimately it's a league rule, it isn't more effective than an FA banning a club, which would probably have happened elsewhere had the SL gone forward.
Didnt the PSG owned/affiliated broadcaster also just shell out sixteen-kajillion euros for the broadcast rights.
bingo.
Do you know what you are talking about? German club presidents are elected by fans. Bayern's executive board (as in the football AG) consists of Kalle, Oliver Kahn, Hasan Salihamidzic and directors for marketing, finances and strategy.
They have some big corporate players on their supervisory board, but since those are elected by shareholders of the football operation and the club itself holds 75% of these shares (and through 50+1 will always hold a majority) it's still a choice made by elected officials.
It really is quite pathetic to see this "everyone else aint all that either" and "the UK really saved the day" reflex when it was United, along FIVE other PL clubs, that was leading the line on ESL, good luck changing things, when people immediately switch to slinging shit and coming up with delusions to even end up patting themselves on the back. And I say this as someone who has several times pointed out Rummenigge's hipocrisy on here.
Last edited:
Spot on! We need to make sure that - whoever in in charge of a club or uefa - saint or devil - there are measures in place to control/prevent excessive behavior. To control excessive finances. To prevent making choices damaging the core of the club and distancing themselves from their fans.
Bayern has such a structure already implemented. The fact that they are lead in such a way and decided to protect themselves with such a governance structure like this in the past, prevented them from even being able to have someone at the top right now who might have considered joining the Super League. That is way more valuable than having a saint in charge yes or no.
Thanks for clearing those things up, I apologize for getting them wrong. Ultimately my point was that the reasons for Bayern's alleged position will be multifactorial, and if the model of not being privately owned by singular people was the most relevant issue why would their position be so opposite to Madrid, etc?
Many fans here seem awfully unaware of how differently clubs are organized in other countries.
The "UK" saved the day is pathetic indeed, UK football has by far the most americanized sports corporate-like football culture in Europe and Florentino's ideas would have got him nowhere outside their support. It has served them well competitevely and still does, and they benefit a lot from it, but clearly has disadvantages for the most purist football fans.
If we believe that 50+1 is what stopped them, because members get the final say, then how can you say they couldn't have joined even if they wanted to? If 75% of the club's voting rights belongs to the club's members, then that is the club. If they wanted it, they could have it.
Ultimately, I'm not even sure that's the main reason they didn't join, even if down the line that likely would have prevented them from joining. I know that sounds a bit silly in itself, because you can't really separate those two decision processes. If they knew their members wouldn't agree to it, then why pursue it? Nonetheless we know the club's management were pretty involved in the planning process of the Super League a couple of years ago, whatever shape that league had back then. So we know their management probably likes the idea of a super league in principle.
However we also sort of know they must have distanced themselves from the idea some time ago. Why else would Real Madrid and co-conspirators not include them in the planning of this final push for the ESL, even though they were heavily involved in laying the ground work just a few years prior? They must have known Bayern wasn't really on board anymore, but hoped that agreeing with 12 clubs and getting if off the ground may change their minds spontaneously. That article @edcunited1878 posted kind of backs that up, that PSG and Bayern had taken UEFA's stance. That doesn't make them the good guys of course. It just means instead of pushing through a breakaway, they tried to bully UEFA into giving them more and more control. They got UEFA to propose a 50:50 joint venture of the CL commercial rights, between the big clubs and UEFA. The ESL clubs rejected, because they already had their own plans. In my opinion that proposal itself is outrageous, why should the big clubs have that much control? Reform UEFA, but let's not give elite clubs even more power.
I think I went a bit off on a tangent, but my speculation is that it's not just 50+1 that likely prevented this. I think there were other points that Bayern and the ESL teams didn't agree on.
Ok.
Enough now.
No, we are not saints. But I've read this the 25th time now.
Explain to me please, what about "50/1 ownership" (which equals 50 by the way) made it so Bayern "couldn't" join the Super League.
Details please.
I think culture also plays a big part in it. In Munich nobody expects them to do whatever it takes to sign the biggest stars in the world. The club and the fans themselves are very proud of doing solid business - no debts and calculated risks. I would say it's even quite the opposite, the Mia San Mia ethos of Bayern is something that explicitly distinguishes them from the madness of Real or Barcelona, which probably have painted themselves in a corner with the expectations they instilled with the spendings of the past. I even assume that the majority of Bayern members would be absolutely okay to not be able to compete in the Champions League if that required them to sell out (don't get me wrong, they also sell out, but not to a point of no return).
I guess that's also something many fans have to understand: you can't have it both ways - opening the door for unhinged capitalism while protecting the club as an entity. Either you have regulations like the German clubs that limit your financial competitiveness or you have unlimited spending power while losing any control over your club as a fan. I will never understand how some people can have the arrogance and sit there now, after all of that, on Sky and say "we have the best product (= the Premier League) in the world" (can't post media yet, but if you search on YouTube for "They thought this was the gold at the end of the rainbow" - Soccer Special panel on ESL backlash, it's on the Sky Sport News channel, min 1:42). Yes, sure, you have the best players in the world, but that's only because you sold your clubs to foreign investors that were on the brink of ruining the whole thing. Maybe it's time to be humble, take a step back, redefine what "best" means, and think about if that's really worth it. It all comes at a price.
Last edited:
What I meant is the business corporate side would probably have wanted to but would face difficulties convincing its fans and members, who have a majority say in club. But I cant disagree with you, things are never so straight forward.
Couldn't, Bayern were one of the instigators of the whole super league setup
If their fans had wanted to of course they could have. Just as much as any of the 12 that did. They were just smart enough to know that it would've been their last action as club officials and that their fans actually have means of enforcing their will.
Saying the only reason they didn't join is 50+1 is like saying you just didn't burn down your house because you don't want a burnt down house. The reason they didn't join is because their members wouldn't have wanted it and the members ultimately have the last word.
ExactlyWell done to them, 50+1 fan ownership model certainly looks quiet appealing. Not saints but if you really believe football clubs belong to areas and the fans, this is the way to go.That also being said the Bundesliga has suffered because Bayern been far too dominant for the last ten years or so.
I don't really get how those behind the super league could think that just announcing such a massive change in football could possibly be accepted without any prior discussion either. Total insanity. I guess once Utd and RM were in as founders the others thought they must have figured it out already.
I don't really get how those behind the super league could think that just announcing such a massive change in football could possibly be accepted without any prior discussion either. Total insanity. I guess once Utd and RM were in as founders the others thought they must have figured it out already.
Exactly, so they couldn't, the difference is the other clubs didn't have fans who had means of enforcing their will.
It is well documented Bayern were one of the main instigators of the whole thing, they were just smart not to go public with it with the power their fans had. If their fans didn't have the means of enforcing their will then they would have likely signed up
No need to get touchy! I was assuming that Bayern would face difficulties convincing its fans and members, who have a majority say in the clubs business.
Well I guess it all boils down to whether you consider the structure and it's members as the club, or the current board representing them.
Give credit to Bayern and I would agree..but people giving credit to PSG are either simply trolling or have no idea what they are talking about.
Actually there was no way PSG was going to sign up with the WC next year.
I'm speaking about the board and other clubs owners
That is probably the OPs point