Debating the pros/cons of the "European Super League"

littlepeasoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
4,551
Location
Give peas a chance.
It won't destroy the game, it will just change it a bit. But in the grand scheme of things, it will not change anything.

Yes, some clubs who might have qualified in a fairer system, won't get qualified there. But more than 99% of the European clubs (I would go as far as saying more than 99.9%) do not have a hope in hell to ever qualify for UCL anyway. Yeah, Leicester might be there once instead of now twice, but most of the clubs are not even in the league system.

I agree with you that the league is going to be spectacular. I would have preferred a relegation system, with two groups of European League 1 where the relegated teams go (and the relegated teams from European League 1 are replaced by teams who do well in national competitions).

But, it is not the end of football as we know it. For most clubs, nothing will change. For some like West Ham, the only thing that will change is the illusion of qualifying for UCL, but that was an illusion all along. And for some like United, the threat of not being able to qualify for UCL will be gone.
Is it though? Without the threat of relegation, or consequences for playing badly, there are going to be so many dead rubber games where it literally doesn't matter if either team playing wins loses or draws - glorified exhibition games for the excitement of no one.

Competition without competition is pointless and f*cking boring.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
43,928
Location
Munich
Is it though? Without the threat of relegation, or consequences for playing badly, there are going to be so many dead rubber games where it literally doesn't matter if either team playing wins loses or draws - glorified exhibition games for the excitement of no one.

Competition without competition is pointless and f*cking boring.
If you have a sufficiently big playoff system, there will always be chances to qualify for playoffs and then win it all. For example, two groups of 10, where the first 3 get qualified for playoffs, 4-5 or 4-7 play in a mini-playoff to qualify for playoffs.

It works very well in American sports, clubs try hard even when they are hopeless. And you can always add incentives.

Finally, many clubs do not play for anything in England anyway. You have 1-2 clubs fighting for titles, another 3-4 for UCL (no one in England cares about EL), and 3-4 to not get relegated. The remaining, are just there.

Check the current table. City is already champions, United is already in UCL. 3-7 (maybe 8 if you count Everton) are in play for UCL. 15-18 are fighting to not get relegated. So only 9 or so clubs are fighting for something. But I guess we'll still check the next games despite that in almost all of them, at least one of the teams is fighting for nothing.
 

littlepeasoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
4,551
Location
Give peas a chance.
Check the current table. City is already champions, United is already in UCL. 3-7 (maybe 8 if you count Everton) are in play for UCL. 15-18 are fighting to not get relegated. So only 9 or so clubs are fighting for something. But I guess we'll still check the next games despite that in almost all of them, at least one of the teams is fighting for nothing.
And unless they're all playing each other there will be plenty of games where it means more to one of the teams involved to win than just money. Having a system where there ever-presents in a league who never have to worry about getting relegated to pick up huge amounts of money completely flies in the face of the traditions of football.

Sorry, you can quote an American model all you want, but again it's f*cking boring.
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
10,896
I agree with you that the league is going to be spectacular.
Will it feck. An invited team would earn half as much for winning the entire Super League as United would just for turning up and losing all 18 league games.

What motivation is there for the SL founders to build elite squads to win this "competition"? There is none. They don't even have the motivation to spend enough to keep the squads competitive for domestic qualification to European competitions. They get the same gargantuan payday every year, even if they finish last.

It's going to be a glorified pre season tournament stretched over a whole fecking year.

Thinking this will spurn owners like the Glazers or Kroenke or Levy to put more money into their facilities and their playing squads is just so embarrassingly naive.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
43,928
Location
Munich
Will it feck. An invited team would earn half as much for winning the entire Super League as United would just for turning up and losing all 18 league games.

What motivation is there for the SL founders to build elite squads to win this "competition"? There is none. They don't even have the motivation to spend enough to keep the squads competitive for domestic qualification to European competitions. They get the same gargantuan payday every year, even if they finish last.

It's going to be a glorified pre season tournament stretched over a whole fecking year.

Thinking this will spurn owners like the Glazers or Kroenke or Levy to put more money into their facilities and their playing squads is just so embarrassingly naive.
I never said it is fair. I just said that it would be spectacular.
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
10,896
I never said it is fair. I just said that it would be spectacular.
It will be spectacularly unfair.

I don't deny it would make for a very interesting one-off competition. But yearly? It will be depressingly boring within a year or two.
 

Reiver

Full Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
1,602
Location
Near Glasgow
Setting aside all the morality issues, the issue for me is the frequency of playing the other teams. One of the things which makes the 99 comeback against Juve is that we don't play them that often. The same goes for the other teams. The sheer randomness of who you are drawn against in Europe is one of its main attractions for me. I know there will be some new teams every year but it's not quite the same.
Theres a big hole there, too, without Munich and Dortmund, two teams we've had some great tussles with in recent history.
 

abundance

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
125
Supports
Inter
Cons: Out of the football pyramid.

That's a capital sin as far as I'm concerned.

And it's not even eased by the only redeeming qualities that a closed league could bring, NBA-style, ie. a strict salary cap and a completely reformed transfer market.

Pros: The only positive thing one can say is that there are so many negative things already in european football, so umm, yeah, just drop the H-bomb instead of slowly killing it by a thousand cut from UEFA & showbiz, why not.
 

crossy1686

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
15,121
Location
Manchester, England
Is it though? Without the threat of relegation, or consequences for playing badly, there are going to be so many dead rubber games where it literally doesn't matter if either team playing wins loses or draws - glorified exhibition games for the excitement of no one.

Competition without competition is pointless and f*cking boring.
Why is this now a thing? You think this place is annoying now when Leicester or Tottenham fans invade and give us shit, just wait until the rest of Europe gets to play us regularly as well. There is such thing as pride, no one who's professional wants to lose games, and the last time I checked no one at United is trying to win a game of football so they don't get relegated. It's such a weird perspective on football to say people only play because they don't want to be punished?
 

Dansk

Full Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
342
Is it though? Without the threat of relegation, or consequences for playing badly, there are going to be so many dead rubber games where it literally doesn't matter if either team playing wins loses or draws - glorified exhibition games for the excitement of no one.

Competition without competition is pointless and f*cking boring.
I mean, if we're being honest, probably half of football matches are already for nothing. When the 10th placed team meets the 12th placed team, neither in danger of relegation or within any realistic reach of a qualifying spot, they pretty much play for nothing. Take a club like Everton; the vast majority of their league games in every season are effectively irrelevant. Everyone knows they're going to finish somewhere around the middle like always. If anything, the ESL would have a higher likelihood of season-long competition, because with all the best teams in Europe playing in one league, there's little chance of any team winning so many games that there's nothing to play for until the last few matchdays at worst. I think the ESL is a bad idea for many reasons, but this really isn't one of them. It's very unlikely that anyone would secure the title two thirds of the way through a season when you can't win 80% of your games like the champions of domestic leagues typically do over the course of any given season because the vast majority of their games are against teams that barely have a chance.
 

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,004
Location
C-137
If you have a sufficiently big playoff system, there will always be chances to qualify for playoffs and then win it all. For example, two groups of 10, where the first 3 get qualified for playoffs, 4-5 or 4-7 play in a mini-playoff to qualify for playoffs.

It works very well in American sports, clubs try hard even when they are hopeless. And you can always add incentives.

Finally, many clubs do not play for anything in England anyway. You have 1-2 clubs fighting for titles, another 3-4 for UCL (no one in England cares about EL), and 3-4 to not get relegated. The remaining, are just there.

Check the current table. City is already champions, United is already in UCL. 3-7 (maybe 8 if you count Everton) are in play for UCL. 15-18 are fighting to not get relegated. So only 9 or so clubs are fighting for something. But I guess we'll still check the next games despite that in almost all of them, at least one of the teams is fighting for nothing.
It sounds boring as hell in the early stages.

The beauty of the Premier League (or any League) is that if you lose against Leicester in the early season it can be just as detrimental as losing to them in the late season. If half the teams qualify for the play-offs, why bother watching the "regular season" matches?

We are 32 games into a 38 game season. If you are saying that there is less to play for, for some teams, 85% of the way through the season isn't bad. But is there really nothing to play for?




Even if we assume that City and United have nothing to play for, which isn't true, most teams in the league are still actively battling for either survival, or for those Champions League places. For Spurs, Chelsea, Leicester and West Ham - this could be an amazing season... or one of heart-break.

And again, we're 85% of the way through the season. I'd much rather have a few dead rubbers at the end of the season, than have loads of dead rubbers at the start of the season.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,019
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
of course they will.



you get bore draws in the PL because small teams sit back and defend against the best teams, because that's their only chance of getting anything out of the game.

i find it a little bizarre that people seem to think playing the best clubs in the world more often is somehow a bad thing. i understand the other issues - relegation, etc - but surely seeing more big games every year is one of the pros to this. in the NBA playoffs, you get an enhanced level of performance because you're playing the better teams and because you play the same team over 7 games, that familiarity in fact enhances the tactics to beat each other. there's a good chance playing the big teams more often will also lead to this.
big teams do this to each other too because they would rather draw than lose to a title rival.
I rather the allure of drawing a big European side that you play once in a while. The whole CL draw is a spectacle in and of itself. The NBA play offs can be replicated by playing more legs in the current CL knock out phases but its not an entire league. The NBA play offs are only a few ties (1st round, semi and finals).
Football can work differently because in a league you can play for a draw where as in play off its win only.
 

Red Stone

Full Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
7,943
Location
NZ
Of course they are not exactly the same, but my point is that they are both controversial at the time when they were proposed.
Teams and FAs were mostly flocking to the European Cup from the very beginning. The English FA were largely the odd ones out. The tournament was a huge hit with fans too. The two aren't even close to being similarly controversial.
 

Ole's screen

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Messages
155
Location
Right next to Ole’s seat
Supports
KC Chiefs
The key differences being:

A) There was no European competition at the time, so the European Cup was filling a void in European football and further expanding a game that was rapidly gaining popularity. The World Cup had already been a thing for over two decades, and football bigwigs had been toying with the idea of similar competitions for clubs since the '30s as well, so it was only a matter of time until it happened regardless of opposition from national FAs.

and, most importantly...

B) Qualification for the European Cup came through winning a national league or by being reigning champions. There was no guaranteed entry for anyone. The Super League is basically mega clubs trying to guarantee themselves stacks upon stacks of TV rights money every year without having to work for it by meeting the entry criteria for the top competitions.

Apparently this is not true. At least not for the first year. Though still a more reasonable selection method compared to this cash grab.

"The participating clubs in the first five seasons of the European Cup were selected by French football magazine L'Equipe on the basis that they were representative and prestigious clubs in Europe.[1] Of the originally selected teams, Chelsea of England were barred from participation by The Football Association, who saw the tournament as a distraction to domestic football and Scottish champions Aberdeen had the same reasons. Chelsea were replaced by Gwardia Warszawa of Poland. In addition, Holland Sport, Honvéd and AB rejected the opportunity to represent the Netherlands, Hungary and Denmark respectively, being replaced by PSV Eindhoven, Vörös Lobogó and AGF Aarhus (becoming the last teams until 1997–98 to qualify for the European Cup not by either winning a domestic league or being current title holders). This was also the only UEFA tournament to include a representative of Saarland, unified into West Germany in 1957."

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955–56_European_Cup

So there's a chance this League will also revise its entrance criteria over time and it will swing in whatever direction the market forces it to. If, over time, it looks like an open tournament will make the league more successful they could do it too.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
11,395
Location
Melbourne
Pro: watch Arsenal and Spurs be the bottom bitch most weeks, lots of AFTV/ExOoz moaning to enjoy.

Cons: everything else.
 

Bird Nerd

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
82
I enjoy watching the league as it plays out. And qualifications for CL and EL. All that goes away for me with this new super league. And we are doing it at the expense of the clubs we buy most of our players from. Many I think will not survive.
 

Red Stone

Full Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
7,943
Location
NZ
So there's a chance this League will also revise its entrance criteria over time and it will swing in whatever direction the market forces it to. If, over time, it looks like an open tournament will make the league more successful they could do it too.
It could happen, but I'm not holding my breath. The problem is the clubs themselves have made themselves the governing body of the ESL. The presidents and owners of the clubs are the presidents and chairmen of the ESL. That makes it a dictatorship rather than a fair competition.

They need to pretty much bin the entire concept and rework it from the ground up at this point to make it even remotely acceptable. The fact that they've come out with the announcement with this joke of a structure in place would be laughable if it wasn't so horrifying.
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
3,778
Pros: feck Uefa and Fifa
Could be fun
Might finally implement spending caps
And also feck Uefa and Fifa

Cons: exclusivity
Glazers stop bothering as money will come no matter what happens on the pitch
Potentially fecks the other teams in the premier league
 

mitchmouse

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
10,104
Not sure if anyone has asked this but while the club's involved in this bollox, will anyone want to sing for us - surely not if they could end up being banned from plying or their country. Possibly out biggest window in years, having slogged through a compacted season playing twice a week almost every week, having seemingly got second place (and, let's be honest, not many could really have believed we'd finished above Liverpool) and now Ole's plans are very possibly completely f@cked up...

This lot wanted to pocket as much money as possible but may have ended up destroying the club. A-wipes!
 

Paul_Scholes18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
10,680
Pro Glaziers are the real financial winners so we should be happy.
CON Glaziers our owners feck them.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,019
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
of course they will.



you get bore draws in the PL because small teams sit back and defend against the best teams, because that's their only chance of getting anything out of the game.

i find it a little bizarre that people seem to think playing the best clubs in the world more often is somehow a bad thing. i understand the other issues - relegation, etc - but surely seeing more big games every year is one of the pros to this. in the NBA playoffs, you get an enhanced level of performance because you're playing the better teams and because you play the same team over 7 games, that familiarity in fact enhances the tactics to beat each other. there's a good chance playing the big teams more often will also lead to this.
big teams do this to each other too because they would rather draw than lose to a title rival.
I rather the allure of drawing a big European side that you play once in a while. The whole CL draw is a spectacle in and of itself. The NBA play offs can be replicated by playing more legs in the current CL knock out phases but its not an entire league. The NBA play offs are only a few ties (1st round, semi and finals).
Football can work differently because in a league you can play for a draw where as in play off its win only.
I've slept on it Stepic and having a night of sleep, I would support a 'UEFA' European Super League so long as qualification for the comp remains the same. I would support a dual league system with 8-16 teams in each division and NBA style play off at the end (current KO competition to finish). This will allow more matches between top sides by amalgamating some of the current smaller dead groups into larger leagues. It would be like pro evolution soccer master leagues but still maintain the Uefa banner, integrity and fair qualification. They could also distribute the money fairly based off league finish (prevent teams from tanking) and then bonus for winning. I fully understand that the "founding fathers" will not allow this though as they want guaranteed access to the JP Morgan billions because they cannot handle the idea of competition and of course are completely self interested.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,019
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
Pros: feck Uefa and Fifa
Could be fun
Might finally implement spending caps
And also feck Uefa and Fifa

Cons: exclusivity
Glazers stop bothering as money will come no matter what happens on the pitch
Potentially fecks the other teams in the premier league
Also teams like Arsenal United and SPurs may tank some seasons or play youngsters once they realise they cannot win the league since their membership is guaranteed. nothing to play for, not even Europa League qualification
 

LilyWhiteSpur

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
10,729
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
I've slept on it Stepic and having a night of sleep, I would support a 'UEFA' European Super League so long as qualification for the comp remains the same. I would support a dual league system with 8-16 teams in each division and NBA style play off at the end (current KO competition to finish). This will allow more matches between top sides by amalgamating some of the current smaller dead groups into larger leagues. It would be like pro evolution soccer master leagues but still maintain the Uefa banner, integrity and fair qualification. They could also distribute the money fairly based off league finish (prevent teams from tanking) and then bonus for winning. I fully understand that the "founding fathers" will not allow this though as they want guaranteed access to the JP Morgan billions because they cannot handle the idea of competition and of course are completely self interested.
This would be the detriment of domestic cups and leagues, 16 teams in each league is a minimum of 30 games a season of European football. The CL should be cut to the top 2 teams in each league and the UEFA cup given a mass overhaul. The idea of this Super league is just wrong from top to bottom.
 

Bilbo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
11,626
Besides the fact that UEFA and FIFA are having a bad day, I really can't think of a single pro to this
 

FahadiHossein

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
251
It's simple. The Americans want a steady source of revenue to come in. If their clubs can be 'relegated' from the UCL (by not qualifying), then their revenue gets affected.
Look at how much this has affected Arsenal with them dropping to the Europa League for the past few years.
That's the only pro that I can think of - this competition guarantees revenue.

But everything else is bad.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,019
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
This would be the detriment of domestic cups and leagues, 16 teams in each league is a minimum of 30 games a season of European football. The CL should be cut to the top 2 teams in each league and the UEFA cup given a mass overhaul. The idea of this Super league is just wrong from top to bottom.
I see what you mean but I did say 8-16 didn't I so 8 is the lower band. That would be 14 games. It would be the same for all the teams who participate. that's not crazy numbers as regular champions league can have more including qualifiers. the actual proposal is to have 2 leagues of 10 which I am fine with.
 

LilyWhiteSpur

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
10,729
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
I see what you mean but I did say 8-16 didn't I so 8 is the lower band. That would be 14 games. It would be the same for all the teams who participate. that's not crazy numbers as regular champions league can have more including qualifiers. the actual proposal is to have 2 leagues of 10 which I am fine with.
That's a minimum of 18 games against elite opposition, to get to the CL final is only 13 games, baring qualifiers. No way is it possible for a club to play in a domestic league of 38 games and then add a minimum of 18 without even mentioning the domestic cup games simply isn't possible.
 

Giggsy13

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
1,025
Location
Toronto
The one pro to all of this is that it may finally trigger a real conversation between UEFA and the big clubs to come to a better solution. The biggest mistake was thinking bigger is better for the champions league. It’s diluted the competition and taken away from the Europa/UEFA cup, which used to be an important competition to win in its heyday. This of course has had a major financial impact where there is no incentive for clubs to win it other than guaranteeing a champions league spot. If the Europa league attracted better clubs then it attracts a bigger audience so more £££. In turn, that should increase the quality of competition in the champions league where you have less clubs. I realize all the big clubs would scoff at that scenario but for sporting reasons it makes much more sense.
 

Ted1985

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 20, 2021
Messages
15
PRO:
- No UEFA & FIFA
- Format

CONS:
- Format

Format is a pro and con because I like it, but at the same time I dont because the teams at the bottom the table dont stand to loose anything such as relegation.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,019
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
That's a minimum of 18 games against elite opposition, to get to the CL final is only 13 games, baring qualifiers. No way is it possible for a club to play in a domestic league of 38 games and then add a minimum of 18 without even mentioning the domestic cup games simply isn't possible.
they won't all be elite games and yes it is possible as that is an increase of 10 games overall which ain't groundbreaking. the same teams will be in MY Super League based off normal champions league qualification so you will still get shite teams from Turkey or Atalanta for example just combine the current groups into a mini league or conference. The squads will also be better due to increased revenue. You can play your youngsters in the early doors of domestic cups
 

LilyWhiteSpur

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
10,729
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
they won't all be elite games and yes it is possible as that is an increase of 10 games overall which ain't groundbreaking. the same teams will be in MY Super League based off normal champions league qualification so you will still get shite teams from Turkey or Atalanta for example just combine the current groups into a mini league or conference. The squads will also be better due to increased revenue. You can play your youngsters in the early doors of domestic cups
Yeah which other clubs in in the PL will have no access to.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,019
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
Yeah which other clubs in in the PL will have no access to.
Not in my version. You seem to have difficulty getting what I mean. I am talking my own version of the Super League will be Uefa backed and have the same qualification process as the current champions league. Basically how I would edit the current proposal
 

LilyWhiteSpur

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
10,729
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
Not in my version. You seem to have difficulty getting what I mean. I am talking my own version of the Super League will be Uefa backed and have the same qualification process as the current champions league. Basically how I would edit the current proposal

Yeah but the problem is this deal is done, the clubs want to cut out a governing body and keep the profit for the clubs involved in there league, Perez has said deal was signed on Sataurday with no going back.
 

Stacks

Full Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
8,019
Location
Between a rock and Gibraltar
Yeah but the problem is this deal is done, the clubs want to cut out a governing body and keep the profit for the clubs involved in there league, Perez has said deal was signed on Sataurday with no going back.
Then we need to stop it even by force. Get Uefa to renegotiate the new champions league format and make it more like a super league but no favourtism. Kick them out of their domestic leagues. whatever it takes to force them to the table