This is an existential crisis for the 12 "clubs" - Football Clubs can NEVER be franchises

[bosnian_red]

Anyone who thinks this isn't threatening the very existence of the football club is being incredibly naive. This is the first step in americanizing the sport. They're turning football clubs into franchises. It is not a reach at all to expect the exact same things that happen in American sports to happen here.

Just look at how teams in the NFL are handled. San Diego was home to the Chargers from 1961 until 2017 before they relocated to Los Angeles (incidentally they started in LA for 1 year before moving to San Diego). Similar with the Rams, from St Louis to LA. Or the Oakland Raiders being in Oakland between 1960-1981, then going to LA until 1995, then back to Oakland until 2019 and now being known as the Las Vegas Raiders. Or in the NHL, just look at how Vegas decided they wanted a franchise, so cherry picked players from all the other teams to start up.

How long until this happens after the start of the ESL? It'll just be a franchise formerly known as Manchester United, going to wherever there is the most opportunity to maximize profits. Occasionally going back to Manchester to play in their "spirited home" as some throw back game to get big hype. It's disgusting and must be stopped. The domestic leagues and the ESL absolutely cannot co-exist with the same teams, they might start off that way until shortly after they deem it counter productive and more of a strain, so they just fully go in on the ESL. This is an assault on everything we've grown up following, and they're trying to take it away. Make no mistake though, if this happens, it'll be the death of Manchester United, or Liverpool, or Barcelona, or whoever.

 

[monosierra]

I don't think clubs will actually change cities so easily like American franchises do. The city is absolutely essential the club's global appeal, even to the fans who have never been to Manchester, Madrid, Turin, Milan etc. I do agree that the ESL clubs might divert resources away from domestic league competititions if the prestige of winning domestic titles fade (and share of broadcast revenues) - domestic competitions might turn into a second tier consideration.

 

[Lastwolf]

Within 5 to 10 years of this starting up, it's going to happen, the ESL don't need 2 clubs in the same city, might as well move to maximise revenue. Hell, Inter Las Vegas, why not.

 

[alexthelion]

Anyone who thinks this isn't threatening the very existence of the football club is being incredibly naive. This is the first step in americanizing the sport. They're turning football clubs into franchises. It is not a reach at all to expect the exact same things that happen in American sports to happen here.

Just look at how teams in the NFL are handled. San Diego was home to the Chargers from 1961 until 2017 before they relocated to Los Angeles (incidentally they started in LA for 1 year before moving to San Diego). Similar with the Rams, from St Louis to LA. Or the Oakland Raiders being in Oakland between 1960-1981, then going to LA until 1995, then back to Oakland until 2019 and now being known as the Las Vegas Raiders. Or in the NHL, just look at how Vegas decided they wanted a franchise, so cherry picked players from all the other teams to start up.

How long until this happens after the start of the ESL? It'll just be a franchise formerly known as Manchester United, going to wherever there is the most opportunity to maximize profits. Occasionally going back to Manchester to play in their "spirited home" as some throw back game to get big hype. It's disgusting and must be stopped. The domestic leagues and the ESL absolutely cannot co-exist with the same teams, they might start off that way until shortly after they deem it counter productive and more of a strain, so they just fully go in on the ESL. This is an assault on everything we've grown up following, and they're trying to take it away. Make no mistake though, if this happens, it'll be the death of Manchester United, or Liverpool, or Barcelona, or whoever.

Wrong.

The other teams were allowed to protect a certain number of their players. Vegas only had the pick of the players other teams didn't want.

Carry on with your rant, though.

 

[altodevil]

I suspect it will be less about moving the current clubs - and more about attracting completely new clubs into the TSL fold. Like a new Amsterdam or Paris franchise. Completely ignoring the current clubs in those cities.

 

[Wilbursaurus]

I don't want any Americanisation of anything Football. Fullstop. Think they run the world and look at the issues over there. No thanks. Pass.

 

[Tallis]

Everyone please store supplies and lock up your apartments!! They are coming for us!!! They are coming!

They are going to brain wash us into eating hot dogs !! We won’t be able to enjoy Burnley hacking our players down like vegetables!

 

[Revan]

I suspect it will be less about moving the current clubs - and more about attracting completely new clubs into the TSL fold. Like a new Amsterdam or Paris franchise. Completely ignoring the current clubs in those cities.

PSG was not ignored, they refused to join.

I don't understand why Ajax was never offered a place though, that is stupid. An excellent city with a well-supported club.

 

[JJ12]

After a while it won’t be profitable enough to have 2 teams in Manchester or 2 teams in North London.

I dread to think the state on this in the end.

 

[Revan]

Everyone please store supplies and lock up your apartments!! They are coming for us!!! They are coming!

They are going to brain wash us into eating hot dogs !! We won’t be able to enjoy Burnley hacking our players down like vegetables!

 

[altodevil]

PSG was not ignored, they refused to join.

I don't understand why Ajax was never offered a place though, that is stupid. An excellent city with a well-supported club.

Sorry - I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. I'm meaning, during the creation of the new franchises, they will simply ignore the fact there are already clubs there. Not that they have been ignored thus far.

 

[led_scholes]

Within 5 to 10 years of this starting up, it's going to happen, the ESL don't need 2 clubs in the same city, might as well move to maximise revenue. Hell, Inter Las Vegas, why not.

Imagine the marketing opportunity in Inter Las Vegas vs Inter Miami.

 

[Revan]

Sorry - I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. I'm meaning, during the creation of the new franchises, they will simply ignore the fact there are already clubs there. Not that they have been ignored thus far.

And rightly so. If PSG does not want to join, but someone wants to have a club in Paris, what's wrong with that?

It's all fun. If it entertains enough people, it is good. If not, it will go to shit.

 

[altodevil]

And rightly so. If PSG does not want to join, but someone wants to have a club in Paris, what's wrong with that?

It's all fun. If it entertains enough people, it is good. If not, it will go to shit.

Didn't say it was good or bad mate

 

[bosnian_red]

Wrong.

The other teams were allowed to protect a certain number of their players. Vegas only had the pick of the players other teams didn't want.

Carry on with your rant, though.

Yeah shouldve expanded more on it, but same thing really. Teams protect a few players but the rest are cherry picked. Wasn't the point anyway

 

[adexkola]

People may think the OP is just fear mongering.

But relocation of teams in America has been done, often, even in the face of vociferous fan disapproval.

I see no reason why they wouldn't attempt the same with clubs they've severed from their community and the rest of European football where such an act is still taboo. You think they'd give a feck about "legacy fans"?

 

[Powderfinger]

So much hysteria, without any evidence or logic.

They are committed to playing domestic football in the near to medium term future. Why would they move out of Manchester where they have a massive fan base and a world class stadium?

If in 20-30 years all the big European clubs move away from domestic football and just play in some weird global super league against FC Beijing and Atletico Doha, its going to be for much bigger structural reasons that make that kind of development essentially inevitable and don't rest one bit on whether or not these clubs are playing in a UEFA competition next year or in the ESL.

 

[JPRouve]

Wrong.

The other teams were allowed to protect a certain number of their players. Vegas only had the pick of the players other teams didn't want.

Carry on with your rant, though.

Also they didn't just decide they wanted a franchise, they bought the right for an expansion, from the NHL aka the other teams.

 

[Siorac]

I don't think clubs will actually change cities so easily like American franchises do. The city is absolutely essential the club's global appeal, even to the fans who have never been to Manchester, Madrid, Turin, Milan etc. I do agree that the ESL clubs might divert resources away from domestic league competititions if the prestige of winning domestic titles fade (and share of broadcast revenues) - domestic competitions might turn into a second tier consideration.

Is it though? Is it for all? 'Juventus' - that 'brand' will be recognised regardless of where the actual 'franchise' is based at. Same with Inter, or Arsenal.

It's a harder sell with Manchester United, or Real Madrid or FC Barcelona, admittedly. But hey, they might calculate that really only the 'legacy fans' care about stuff like that and the consumers will be happy to follow FC Blaugrana and Real Miami if they have the best players in the world.

 

[Revan]

People may think the OP is just fear mongering.

But relocation of teams in America has been done, often, even in the face of vociferous fan disapproval.

I see no reason why they wouldn't attempt the same with clubs they've severed from their community and the rest of European football where such an act is still taboo. You think they'd give a feck about "legacy fans"?

It can definitely happen. But, I don't see it happening outside of Europe, for logistic reasons (very long flights).

And within Europe, it would have been those that don't have strong local support (mainly City and Chelsea). However, who the feck is gonna support Stockholm City or Berlin City?

United is extremely well-supported so I don't see any risk there. Until you have have a flight from London to Shanghai or Tokyo in three hours. Then I can totally see Shanghai Red Devils, or Seoul Red Devils, or Tokyo Red Devils. That might be it, for me, though.

 

[Revan]

Is it though? Is it for all? 'Juventus' - that 'brand' will be recognised regardless of where the actual 'franchise' is based at. Same with Inter, or Arsenal.

It's a harder sell with Manchester United, or Real Madrid or FC Barcelona, admittedly. But hey, they might calculate that really only the 'legacy fans' care about stuff like that and the consumers will be happy to follow FC Blaugrana and Real Miami if they have the best players in the world.

But if that happens, then what is wrong with that? If the consumers are fine with such things, and in fact, would like such things, then why not. I definitely wouldn't like to see Sydney United but if more people want that, so be it. There are another 200 clubs in Manchester for the local fans.

This is just a natural evolution, and was going to happen anyway. People like to get entertained and pay big money for it. The more entertained people are, the better.

Man United or Real Madrid long ceased to be about Manchester and Madrid. They are global entities nowadays. The sooner people understand this, the easier it gets from there.

Players are now more important than ever, many new fans support players instead of clubs. Again, it is how it is.

Football is definitely changing, no doubt there. For good or for bad, we shall see.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

After a while it won’t be profitable enough to have 2 teams in Manchester or 2 teams in North London.

I dread to think the state on this in the end.

This is only a factor when gate receipts make up a large percentage of a team's income stream. Since the ESL will be getting most of their income from TV deals it's not going to be a problem to have multiple teams in a single market.

Where it might become a problem is if a team goes looking for tax breaks and other concessions if they want to build a new stadium in their hometown.

 

[horsechoker]

The Tokyo Red Devils will play The Brisbane Reds in their spiritual home of Manchester at The Pepsi Etihad Stadium sponsored Allianz Insurance - Insurance your way with Allianz.

 

[sun_tzu]

Within 5 to 10 years of this starting up, it's going to happen, the ESL don't need 2 clubs in the same city, might as well move to maximise revenue. Hell, Inter Las Vegas, why not.

Started happening a long time ago

 

[Tom8700]

A "club" that is owned by individuals or a coorporation is not a club anyway. A club is owned by its members. Anything else is not a club.

 

[JulesWinnfield]

The first thing - which will definitely happen - is games played globally.

Flight logistics might make expanding franchises much outside Europe too difficult, but I could certainly see a future where games are regionalised across the world. First one or two games a season in different locations. Then say 8 matches between 4 teams will be played in different parts of the world over a couple of weeks. There's no way that won't eventually happen - its perfectly logistically possible and a potential massive money spinner. I wouldn't be surprised if seasons end up being half Europe based, half "global tour".

 

[Siorac]

But if that happens, then what is wrong with that? If the consumers are fine with such things, and in fact, would like such things, then why not. I definitely wouldn't like to see Sydney United but if more people want that, so be it. There are another 200 clubs in Manchester for the local fans.

This is just a natural evolution, and was going to happen anyway. People like to get entertained and pay big money for it. The more entertained people are, the better.

Man United or Real Madrid long ceased to be about Manchester and Madrid. They are global entities nowadays. The sooner people understand this, the easier it gets from there.

Players are now more important than ever, many new fans support players instead of clubs. Again, it is how it is.

Football is definitely changing, no doubt there. For good or for bad, we shall see.

What's wrong with it is not the point. I don't like it. I hope that millions of other fans don't like it either. I'm hoping that lots and lots of people voicing their opposition to the idea adds at least a little to the pressure these greedy disgusting feckers might be feeling. After all, they ARE concerned about the bottom line and if people don't watch the product, they are fecked.

Now I have no illusions: as you say, there are plenty of weird people even on the Caf who care more about Cristiano Ronaldo than any football club. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong in me and many others saying that we're not like that, that there's still a 'market' for people whose idea of great football isn't a glorified pre-season tournament between global franchises.

I'm starting to believe that the best realistic scenario is that these super league founders feck off from all domestic and European football, and just keep themselves to their own little playpen. The absolute worst case scenario is that they indeed do their little super league but also continue to taint the domestic leagues with their foul stench, fecking everything up at the same time. If they want this thing, they better commit to it instead of ruining both European and domestic competition at the same time.

 

[RobinLFC]

This relocating of franchises is a bit overblown. Traditional franchises in the USA are embedded in their communities, you wouldn't see the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls moving right now for example. Apart from Seattle which was due to their owner, which franchises have changed cities in the last few decades?

Teams might be moved once but "relocating franchises every 5-10 years" is not conform with the model of the USA traditional big sports imo.

 

[RobinLFC]

Now I have no illusions: as you say, there are plenty of weird people even on the Caf who care more about Cristiano Ronaldo than any football club. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong in me and many others saying that we're not like that, that there's still a 'market' for people whose idea of great football isn't a glorified pre-season tournament between global franchises.

You say there's nothing wrong with that and there isn't, but why label fans of players "weird" in the same sentence and suggest that that is weird? It's also perfectly understandable, there are probably millions of fans who've supported the Cavs, Heat, Cavs and then Lakers just because they like LeBron and are not attached to one particular team. It's not more or less weird than supporting one team in a city you don't have a connection with (as a foreign fan).

 

[Siorac]

You say there's nothing wrong with that and there isn't, but why label fans of players "weird" in the same sentence and suggest that that is weird? It's also perfectly understandable, there are probably millions of fans who've supported the Cavs, Heat, Cavs and then Lakers just because they like LeBron and are not attached to one particular team. It's not more or less weird than supporting one team in a city you don't have a connection with (as a foreign fan).

I find it weird because football is a team sport, not an individual one. But each to their own.

 

[Siorac]

Apart from Seattle which was due to their owner, which franchises have changed cities in the last few decades?

Grizzlies from Vancouver to Memphis, Chargers back to Los Angeles from San Diego, Hornets to New Orleans from Charlotte... there were more, I'm sure.

 

[RobinLFC]

Grizzlies from Vancouver to Memphis, Chargers back to Los Angeles from San Diego, Hornets to New Orleans from Charlotte... there were more, I'm sure.

I was strictly talking NBA, although there have been a fair few in the NFL recently yeah.

The Grizzlies were the first since the Kings in 1985, and only the Hornets and SuperSonics after that. That's 3 relocations in 36 years now. I'm in full agreement that relocations could be a reality in the (near) future already and I don't put anything beyond these owners but there wouldn't be constant relocations to please different markets across the globe imo. They might relocate a London or Manchester team but (I, at least) don't expect them to do that again anytime soon after that.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Grizzlies from Vancouver to Memphis, Chargers back to Los Angeles from San Diego, Hornets to New Orleans from Charlotte... there were more, I'm sure.

There are lots more across all the US sports. Franchises move because they lose money. Most of this is due to a combination of poor performance, big contracts, low attendance and other costs. The ESL looks like it will rely largely on TV money so these factors aren't likely to impact the clubs involved. The Grizzlies, for example, were losing 40m a year.

 

[monosierra]

Is it though? Is it for all? 'Juventus' - that 'brand' will be recognised regardless of where the actual 'franchise' is based at. Same with Inter, or Arsenal.

It's a harder sell with Manchester United, or Real Madrid or FC Barcelona, admittedly. But hey, they might calculate that really only the 'legacy fans' care about stuff like that and the consumers will be happy to follow FC Blaugrana and Real Miami if they have the best players in the world.

I agree that Juventus is a unique case as Turin doesn't play much of a role in its global branding. But for the others, the name of the city is synonymous with the club and its glories. There's no incentive to move the clubs around anyway - they can always fly all over the planet for exhibition matches anyway. The ESL can play matches in Asia, Dubai, the US etc - that kind of commitment will ultimately sap away at the resources devoted to league competition.

 

[RobinLFC]

I agree that Juventus is a unique case as Turin doesn't play much of a role in its global branding. But for the others, the name of the city is synonymous with the club and its glories. There's no incentive to move the clubs around anyway - they can always fly all over the planet for exhibition matches anyway. The ESL can play matches in Asia, Dubai, the US etc - that kind of commitment will ultimately sap away at the resources devoted to league competition.

Is it really? Everyone knows who you mean if you mention The Reds, City, United, Spurs, ... in a football related context. Whether it's Syndey or Manchester that's placed in front of it will be forgotten soon enough.

 

[sardinetrawler]

One fundamental difference with American sports leagues and for example the Premier League (and European football teams in general) is the grassroots level structure in Europe vs. the unaffiliated college/junior league drafts in the U.S. Sure, some teams like the Bulls, Yankees, Rangers etc. are very tied to the local communities, but this goes much deeper in European leagues with their own academies bringing up local talent through their ranks. I may be wrong here, but this dynamic alone would make it an entirely different prospect of moving, say, Manchester United to Las Vegas, than moving the North Stars from Minnesota to Dallas and just removing the "North" bit, at least in terms of the level of uproar it would cause in the local communities.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Some great ideas about global expansion in this thread. Can't wait.

 

[Revan]

What's wrong with it is not the point. I don't like it. I hope that millions of other fans don't like it either. I'm hoping that lots and lots of people voicing their opposition to the idea adds at least a little to the pressure these greedy disgusting feckers might be feeling. After all, they ARE concerned about the bottom line and if people don't watch the product, they are fecked.

If a lot of people don't like it, then there is no problem. It will simply fail.

If a lot of people like it, then again there is no problem. Something that many people would enjoy will succeed.

Now I have no illusions: as you say, there are plenty of weird people even on the Caf who care more about Cristiano Ronaldo than any football club. But at the same time, there's nothing wrong in me and many others saying that we're not like that, that there's still a 'market' for people whose idea of great football isn't a glorified pre-season tournament between global franchises.

There is absolutely nothing weird with that. FFS, we both support a club that we have no affiliation with, is in a different country, it has US owners, Norwegian manager and most players are not English (let alone Mancs). Oh, and those players playing in the 'working men' game all get paid hundreds of thousands of pounds per week. And we get angry and excited that some millionaire put a bag of air in some net.

I mean, it is all equally weird and fundamentally stupid, but at the same time it makes people happy. Whatever makes people happier, the better. If that means, United going to Shanghai, so be it (I would have no interest in that and wouldn't follow it, but the universe doesn't revolve around me).

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I think Franchises/Clubs actually moving cities is at the extreme end of speculation.

I think (far) what's more likely is that only 50%-75% of your home games are actually played in your home stadium. The rest are spent playing in random cities around the world.

 

[Siorac]

If a lot of people don't like it, then there is no problem. It will simply fail.

If a lot of people like it, then again there is no problem. Something that many people would enjoy will succeed.



There is absolutely nothing weird with that. FFS, we both support a club that we have no affiliation with, is in a different country, it has US owners, Norwegian manager and most players are not English (let alone Mancs). Oh, and those players playing in the 'working men' game all get paid hundreds of thousands of pounds per week. And we get angry and excited that some millionaire put a bag of air in some net.

I mean, it is all equally weird and fundamentally stupid, but at the same time it makes people happy. Whatever makes people happier, the better. If that means, United going to Shanghai, so be it (I would have no interest in that and wouldn't follow it, but the universe doesn't revolve around me).

I don't really see the point of this type of posts. You're basically saying we shouldn't care, whatever happens, happens. Sure, that's one attitude. A bit nihilistic for my taste but anyway. I do care, I do have preferences in this matter and I will voice them because this plan won't make me happier. My universe DOES revolve around me, even if the actual universe doesn't.

(And as I said elsewhere, cheering for a single individual in a team sport IS weird, nothing is going to convince me otherwise.)