This. No thanks.
Footballs biggest open secret: The European Super League
- Thread starter Prodigal7
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Collective bargaining is why the PL is so strong.
Look at Spain, Germany, Italy and France where all the money is concentrated at a few clubs.
Are you telling me that Bournemouth and Southampton as examples over the past week contribute nothing to the TV deal?
Boo boo if clubs outside the PL don’t like it. Perhaps they should look at ways that teams don’t win the league 7,8,9 years in row.
Won’t the rumoured Super League replace the Champions League? Or will it supplant both the Domestic and Champions League?
First the PL isn't particularly strong, so that's a non starter. Secondly no Bournemouth and Southampton do not contribute much to TV deals, they are not the ones being widely watched by people nationally and internationally and aren't the ones driving sky and BT advertisement prices up, it's the teams with 20 to 30 times more fans, which is where TV money comes from, last weeks games have no impact on TV deals that have been signed in 2018-2019 and no one will be thinking about it in September either. Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal's brands and fanbases are the reason behind these TV deals, the rest are just piggybacking. An example of that United were part of 4 of the top 5 all time PL TV audiences.
As for your last point, the PL was still making far more TV money when United was winning 12 out of the first 20 titles. Ligue 1 for example who spent the vast majority of his time being arguably the most competitive league no team has more than 10 titles should tell you that competitiveness has nothing to do with TV money, TV money is detached from football it's all about branding and marketing, most leagues weren't in the sport business culture and the PL capitalized on that.
Now regarding my previous point, if the PL wants to share things equally it's their decision but people shouldn't call that fair because it's not, it's egalitarian. It's a business decision meant to artificially elevate the floor of the league which is good for the league in a vaccum but nothing more.
The fact that Utd, City, Leicester, Liverpool and Chelsea have won the league over the last 8 years, and then you look at Germany, France, Italy and Spain and you see how dominant one or two teams are - shows how good the PL is.
It doesn’t artificially inflate the league, it keeps it competitive.
Your point that that’s unfair on other leagues is honestly laughable.
You are also very wrong, people do tune in to watch the likes of Bournemouth and Southampton, because they are good, competitive teams. People don’t want to watch top teams being utterly dominant so many other teams in the league.
I’m not sure where you real issue is here. If the PL didn’t have collective bargaining, we would have a far poorer league. I for one am glad teams like Watford and Leicester and competing, and if that’s because they can afford to buy players that a top 4 Italian team cannot, then cry me a river.
Last edited:
It's unfair when the top teams who are already at a massive competitive advantage create a monopoly on the TV money furthering strengthening their positions and creating more of a divide. Let's be honest if the TV money was split equally, would i mean Burnley would catch up with Man City? No. But it would help in the long run, the more it's weighted towards the top teams the bigger the gap will be.
But you are not actually reducing the gap by sharing equally you add a few dozens of miillions in the pockets of smaller PL clubs but the gap is still massive because the bigger club deservedly have far larger commercial deals, gates and prize money. On the other end you artificially widen the gap between these smaller PL clubs and lower league teams and you also widen the gap with similar foreign clubs, so you do two things at the same time you strenghen the top PL teams by weakening foreign clubs financial positions and you weaken lower league teams against the PL.
Also they didn't not create a monopoly on TV deals. Today in all leagues you have for example team A bringing 300m to the TV deal pot and getting 150m while Team B who brought 20m gets 60m. If anything individual TV deal are the fair option, each team negotiate with TV broadcasters and no one gets more than he generates. I'm not for it, I prefer the current system but let's not call it fair because it clearly isn't.
Last edited:
Wrong. All those leagues have similar collective bargaining deals as the PL
The reason the PL is so strong is because UK tvs are richer and the PL has now 5-6 teams with big worldwide following who generate a lot of money for the networks(one of the reasons why sky and co. can spend so much on the PL is because they get a lot of that money back through international rights)
The split between the PL top and bottom earners and serie A top and bottom earners is roughly the same. But the PL bottom earners earn more than serie A top earners
Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal, plus now City and Spurs are the reason why the PL makes so much money. Take those away and the money would disappear
Yeah, if it happened then it would be run by an executive body appointed by the clubs themselves (probably led by someone like David Gill or Richard Scudamore) and they'd impose loads of conditions for clubs to join. If City, PSG or Chelsea were happy to join under those conditions, then great.
You are confusing competitiveness with being good. Ligue 1 wasn't particularly good when in the 90s 8 teams won the title in 10 years, Ligue 1 has the same model than the PL when it comes to redistribution, money is distributed the same way, the difference is the size of the cake, it's far bigger in the PL because the top clubs were far bigger and broadcasters could easily monetize it.
Now if you want to believe that United and Bournemouth broadcasting shares are equal and that it's not a way to artificially elevate Bournemouth then fair enough.
I’m not confusing things at all, the fact the likes of Spurs get to a European final is further evidence. Clearly all the PL winning teams over the last decade have been very good teams. One could argue against Leicester, but they have come back strong this season.
I don’t understand this argument of ‘artificially elevating’ teams. They got to the PL on merit, and are then given a share of the TV money, which, yes they deserve.
The top 4.5,6 teams in the league can’t play each other every single week. You need 20 clubs. It’s ridiculous to suggest those clubs shouldn’t get a fair share of the TV money which enables them to compete in the league.
Sounds like a crappy pre season tournament, rather than a commercially viable league capable of replacing the current structure.
Let’s not kid ourselves about it being in the best interests of the game, it’s a power and money grab by the ‘Big’ clubs
Me too. Over the years I have become far more interested in the national leagues. Much more enjoyable for me. Haven't felt the same excitement wathing us in the EL or watching the CL in general.
That may correlate with us not playing in the CL for the majority of the last decade though
Because games do not have the same advertising price. The price for advertising depends on the teams and fixtures, a Manchester United game is more expensive than a Bournemouth game, Manchester United vs Chelsea is a lot more expensive than Bournemouth vs Watford. And it's based on the expected audiences legal and illegal.
We clearly look at things fundamentally in different ways. You clearly just want the rich clubs to keep getting richer.
You may get your way, and we will all be poorer for it.
First that's not an answer to my point, I have been making the factual point that football clubs aren't equal, they do not bring the same amount of money to the table and it's not even close which means that when you are advocating for an equal sharing of revenues, you are not advocating for fairness since you are treating inequal entities as equal, that's fundamentally unfair but it's egalitarian. Which is my point don't mix fairness and egalitarianism, it's not the same thing.
And secondly, I'm personally for a mix of fairness and egalitarianism which when it comes to TV deal is what we are currently seeing with top clubs getting more than small clubs but small clubs getting more than they would in normal circumstances, it allows leagues to elevate their floor. Now if the PL goes into a more egalitarian model, it's going to cause many problems for english lower league teams, primarily championship teams who are every years in competition with a former PL teams who got subsidized by the PL the previous year, those teams have a massive financial advantage and that observation also applies to foreign clubs who are maybe sharing 1bn while the PL shares 5bn between 20 clubs.
That’s true, but how long before sugar daddy clubs start popping in those leagues as well. That would make them quickly rethink things.
The Arabs should have bought big clubs (like AC Milan), in the first place.. 
I'm not exaggerating when I say this, but I've followed football closely since 1994 and people have been talking about a super league since then. It probably goes back to when the CL started.
It would kill off domestic football or it would have to go semi professional. TV money props up a lot of clubs and the likes of Sky BT etc wouldnt be paying big money for Palace v West Ham etc every week.
Nonsense. Players only in domestic leagues would probably just be paid millions per year instead of 10s of millions.
They wouldnt get the chance to buy decent players though as they would all want to play for the European League. Where would the money come from to pay these players millions a year if the scenario I painted where the TV money would dry up or be vastly reduced? Where would the young fans come from for the teams not in the European league when they can only see the best players at certain teams or on tv? Think about it.
Even if the premier league were to fall to Serie A standards in the presence of a European Super League the players are still earning millions per year. A super league of 10 teams can't buy the 100s of players earning millions across Europe and people will still be watching domestic matches in pretty much the same volume. Let's not sensationalize things to win an argument.
I aint arguing with you, im just saying what I think will happen the same as you, thats why its called a forum. It wouldnt be much use if everybody thought the same.
You should tell the TV companies that people don't want to watch Real or Barca running away at La Liga and not pay them so much.
The fact is that the elite clubs have the fans that drive up the TV deals, not the ones making up the numbers.
Whoosh. Missed my entire point. I’m clearly not bothered how much Barca or Real get in TV money.You should tell the TV companies that people don't want to watch Real or Barca running away at La Liga and not pay them so much.
The fact is that the elite clubs have the fans that drive up the TV deals, not the ones making up the numbers.
But the PL is a far better league due to a fairer distribution of TV money, which is not just based on the size of the club.