What does a European Super League look like?

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
12,455
Location
BR -> MI -> TX
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
If the clubs walk away from domestic competitions, and UEFA is not involved, then FIFA and UEFA will ban all participants from international football too. It would be interesting seeing how many footballers who would accept the risks of playing in this new Super League format under those restrictions.
They'd make that threat but there's no way it would happen. Imagine them banning England, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France from internationals. FIFA and UEFA would be shooting themselves in the foot!
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
A super league that does away with domestic leagues is clearly a bad idea for the game.

However, I think there is a lot of room to improve the major European competitions. For example, Man Utd have only played Juventus twice in the last 20 years - that's mental and far too infrequent for two giant clubs. We've only faced Real Madrid 3 times in 20 years. Crazy.

As a fan, I'd love to see those big matches between the giant clubs a bit more frequently. Not every year, but more often than once a decade. There has to be a happy middle ground.
The second group stage in the CL used to take care of this.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,880
Supports
Man City
That PSG and City are using financial doping and leaving everyone else unable to compete for transfers and positions in the league, they would otherwise justly have deserved. Is this hard to understand?
Can't really be a super league if you are leaving out 2 of the best teams in Europe for teams chasing the Arsene Wenger trophies though.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
That PSG and City are using financial doping and leaving everyone else unable to compete for transfers and positions in the league, they would otherwise justly have deserved. Is this hard to understand?
That's a big exaggeration, in the last decade United has spent roughly the same as PSG while Juventus, Chelsea and Barcelona are above them, in terms of gross expenditure. City are first but only a hundred of millions above Barcelona. Not only PSG and City don't leave everyone else unable to compete for transfers but they are not actually that efficient on the transfer market, they haven't really been close to win the CL and City has failed to totally dominate the league.

Now don't get me wrong, I want to see these clubs sanctioned when they don't follow the rules but people are exaggerating and giving these clubs too much importance. The beauty of football is that you can have all the money that you want, if you are not extremely good at managing a club and coaching footballers, you are going to waste money instead of dominate. Money is a great help but it's not substitue for competency that's why clubs like Everton or Milan have done nothing since their takeovers despite spending fortunes. Big clubs shouldn't worry about others they should focus on being the best in all aspect of football because at the end of the day there are enough elite players to fill the top 10 clubs, including PSG and City.
 

Demyanenko_square_jaw

Full Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
1,048
Half of European club football was state owned for decades, many clubs in Russia and others are still mostly propped up by government budgets. Of course they weren't/aren't rich and successful enough to get angry about.
 

ROFLUTION

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
7,547
Location
Denmark
That's a big exaggeration, in the last decade United has spent roughly the same as PSG while Juventus, Chelsea and Barcelona are above them, in terms of gross expenditure. City are first but only a hundred of millions above Barcelona. Not only PSG and City don't leave everyone else unable to compete for transfers but they are not actually that efficient on the transfer market, they haven't really been close to win the CL and City has failed to totally dominate the league.

Now don't get me wrong, I want to see these clubs sanctioned when they don't follow the rules but people are exaggerating and giving these clubs too much importance. The beauty of football is that you can have all the money that you want, if you are not extremely good at managing a club and coaching footballers, you are going to waste money instead of dominate. Money is a great help but it's not substitue for competency that's why clubs like Everton or Milan have done nothing since their takeovers despite spending fortunes. Big clubs shouldn't worry about others they should focus on being the best in all aspect of football because at the end of the day there are enough elite players to fill the top 10 clubs, including PSG and City.
While I get what you're saying, the ground premise of it all remains the same: That they dont deserve the spots they're claiming. Its the scale of it that destroys it all. You could live with Chelski for a short while, but soon top 3 could be state/oligarch-owned and pushed the historical clubs out and the potential new-comers like Everton, Southampton, etc.

They're taking league spots and titles from clubs who earned it. Sure the two new big spenders haven't won CL, but its a matter of time and they're both among the favorites to win it this year. While clubs like United have been terrible at spending their money right, I dont see how that makes these clubs less of an injustice towards the clubs who earned it. Who knows Leicester might even would have made top 4 a couple of times without City.

I know it also brings fairytales up and Montpellier's and Leicesters pops up now and then, but we'd also have that without the stateowned clubs too.

Edit: I Know this is not much about a super league, but the original debate was from another thread and got merged I think
 

Speedy30

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
1,493
Location
On the Kop
Supports
Liverpool
I think a European Super League would look a bit similar to what we're seeing in world football right now with no fans in attendance
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
While I get what you're saying, the ground premise of it all remains the same: That they dont deserve the spots they're claiming. Its the scale of it that destroys it all. You could live with Chelski for a short while, but soon top 3 could be state/oligarch-owned and pushed the historical clubs out and the potential new-comers like Everton, Southampton, etc.

They're taking league spots and titles from clubs who earned it. Sure the two new big spenders haven't won CL, but its a matter of time and they're both among the favorites to win it this year. While clubs like United have been terrible at spending their money right, I dont see how that makes these clubs less of an injustice towards the clubs who earned it. Who knows Leicester might even would have made top 4 a couple of times without City.

I know it also brings fairytales up and Montpellier's and Leicesters pops up now and then, but we'd also have that without the stateowned clubs too.

Edit: I Know this is not much about a super league, but the original debate was from another thread and got merged I think
But Leicester and Montpellier are typical example of sugar daddied clubs, they are the norm that I'm talking about. If we are talking about deserve what makes these clubs deserving anything? Montpellier has been bankrolled by Nicollin for almost 50 years and Leicester were a championship club, they hadn't been in the PL since 2004.
And PSG are taking nothing from clubs that earned it, PSG were a big french clubs that happened to be mismanage by Colony Capital, a club that has been producing youth players but had one of the worst owners that I have seen in Football, unlike City at least they were winning the French Cup regularly.
 
Last edited:

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
14,328
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
I think a European Super League would look a bit similar to what we're seeing in world football right now with no fans in attendance
Nonsense. A super league would be like the big North American leagues, and they don't have any attendance issues. Also little of the hyped up partisan nonsense (and very little away support). Not saying that would be better, but of course stadiums would still be full. In fact, games would become even more attractive to tourists, cause every game is 'big'; no more situations where your heroes happen to play Norwich during your visit in town.
But Leicester and Montpellier are typical example of sugar daddied clubs, they are the norm that I'm talking about. If we are talking about deserve what makes these clubs deserving anything? Montpellier has been bankrolled by Nicollin for almost 50 years and Leicester were a championship club, they hadn't been in the PL since 2004.
And PSG are taking nothing from clubs that earned it, PSG were a big french clubs that happened to be mismanage by Colony Capital, a club that has been producing youth players but had one of the worst owners that I have seen in Football, unlike City at least they winning the French Cup regularly.
Totally agree. Anyway, the moral argument ('deserve') is ridiculous in the context. The whole idea is to have a league for the biggest clubs to get even bigger and richer. As if they care about history or 'appropriateness'. They just want to be guaranteed to play only big games on their own level, so they can get the best players, biggest audiences, and richest sponsors. City and PSG fit right into that. Also, in a super league, there would be so much money that everyone would pull up to similar levels pretty quickly, and sugar daddy clubs won't stand out anymore (or be necessary among that group). Again, the comparison is the North American sports leagues, especially the NFL.

(I still rather except a revamp of the CL and a tiered system though - per my brilliant post on page 2. :wenger: )
 
Last edited:

ROFLUTION

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
7,547
Location
Denmark
But Leicester and Montpellier are typical example of sugar daddied clubs, they are the norm that I'm talking about. If we are talking about deserve what makes these clubs deserving anything? Montpellier has been bankrolled by Nicollin for almost 50 years and Leicester were a championship club, they hadn't been in the PL since 2004.
And PSG are taking nothing from clubs that earned it, PSG were a big french clubs that happened to be mismanage by Colony Capital, a club that has been producing youth players but had one of the worst owners that I have seen in Football, unlike City at least they were winning the French Cup regularly.
How can you say PSG take nothing away from clubs that earned it? Would the next in line not have won the Ligue 1, or entered Europa League, if they hadn't gone berzerk and bought big players like Zlatan, Cavani, Mbappe, Neymar?
PSG was a big french club of name before the take-over, but they hadn't been anything noteworthy since the 90s and was basically a forgotten club. Had they not been where they are now, the next clubs in line, would have succes from income and money to build a succesful foundation on. Instead these clubs get shafted (some of them are owned by sugar-daddies like Monaco, Nice, Bordeaux, etc yes).

While I agree that sugar-daddied clubs are becoming the norm, and Leicester and Montpellier don't deserve it as much, as say if Bournemouth won the league, the scale of them are nothing near the state-owned clubs. That's the difference. The state-owned clubs have endless money, Leicester and Montpellier have a similar amount to spend of a middle/sub-top-club. Mind you, I'm not a big fan of these clubs neither, but these example was mentioned to say that "miracles" occur with or without the big state owned clubs. I could have said Herfølge in the Danish league in 2000, but those two are some of the most commonly known.

There's some things fundamentally wrong with how clubs are owned these days. Be it state-backed or just a regular sugar-daddy, who can leave the club in the dirt like Coventry. The sugar-daddy virus has already entered and taken over the system, but the state-owned clubs almost completely takes the joy away from football to me, as the scale of it is insane, and it's used to wash away bad countries reputation (while they continue their attrocities against humanity in the dark). That's another clear difference between the two types of owners to me.
 
Last edited:

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
How can you say PSG take nothing away from clubs that earned it? Would the next in line not have won the Ligue 1, or entered Europa League, if they hadn't gone berzerk and bought big players like Zlatan, Cavani, Mbappe, Neymar?
PSG was a big french club of name before the take-over, but they hadn't been anything noteworthy since the 90s and was basically a forgotten club. Had they not been where they are now, the next clubs in line, would have succes from income and money to build a succesful foundation on. Instead these clubs get shafted (some of them are owned by sugar-daddies like Monaco, Nice, Bordeaux, etc yes).

While I agree that sugar-daddied clubs are becoming the norm, and Leicester and Montpellier don't deserve it as much, as say if Bournemouth won the league, the scale of them are nothing near the state-owned clubs. That's the difference. The state-owned clubs have endless money, Leicester and Montpellier have a similar amount to spend of a middle/sub-top-club. Mind you, I'm not a big fan of these clubs neither, but these example was mentioned to say that "miracles" occur with or without the big state owned clubs. I could have said Herfølge in the Danish league in 2000, but those two are some of the most commonly known.
In France there is no such a thing as next in line and all the clubs are sugar daddied, the problem is that you stop the list and decide who is deserving or not which is a strange thing to do. And PSG have actually been a good thing for the league and other clubs, the increase in TV money and the fact that for once a club regularly adds points to the UEFA coefficient means that Ligue 1 didn't drop to 6th or 7th. Also PSG have never been a forgotten club, maybe to you if you don't follow football in France but it would be like saying that Tottenham were a forgotten club in the 2000s.

And Sugar daddied clubs aren't becoming the norm, they have been the norm since the beginnings of Football, it's the Football business that is becoming the norm. You are mixing things up here.
 

ROFLUTION

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
7,547
Location
Denmark
In France there is no such a thing as next in line and all the clubs are sugar daddied, the problem is that you stop the list and decide who is deserving or not which is a strange thing to do. And PSG have actually been a good thing for the league and other clubs, the increase in TV money and the fact that for once a club regularly adds points to the UEFA coefficient means that Ligue 1 didn't drop to 6th or 7th. Also PSG have never been a forgotten club, maybe to you if you don't follow football in France but it would be like saying that Tottenham were a forgotten club in the 2000s.

And Sugar daddied clubs aren't becoming the norm, they have been the norm since the beginnings of Football, it's the Football business that is becoming the norm. You are mixing things up here.
So that's just France riding on the back of PSG's foreign money? Is that fair? Or why would it not be fair if France just actually dropped to 6th or 7th if they didn't produce results and another country did?

Sugar daddies are not the norm in many countries. Maybe in France and some of the big leagues, but it's still 50/50 or lower imo. I wouldn't call say FSG, Glazers or Stan Kroenke sugar-daddies neither. Sure they are owners with a motive to earn money and be succesful on the pitch, but they're not going crazy with the money compared to their respective clubs, which constitutes a real sugar daddy to me. A sugar daddy to me is one that doesn't care all that much on what they lose, as the goal is mostly not to run a profitable football club, but to just have fun with a club or sportswash a country. Oligarch's and state-owned clubs usually fall into that category.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
So that's just France riding on the back of PSG's foreign money? Is that fair? Or why would it not be fair if France just actually dropped to 6th or 7th if they didn't produce results and another country did?

Sugar daddies are not the norm in many countries. Maybe in France and some of the big leagues, but it's still 50/50 or lower imo. I wouldn't call say FSG, Glazers or Stan Kroenke sugar-daddies neither. Sure they are owners with a motive to earn money and be succesful on the pitch, but they're not going crazy with the money compared to their respective clubs, which constitutes a real sugar daddy to me. A sugar daddy to me is one that doesn't care all that much on what they lose, as the goal is mostly not to run a profitable football club, but to just have fun with a club or sportswash a country. Oligarch's and state-owned clubs usually fall into that category.
Football has never been fair and no it's not 50/50, historically elite football has mainly been about sugar daddies and corporate clubs. The PL are the ones who went in a different direction especially in the 90s, they were the first to go deeply into football business and hyper-commercialization, they are now the ones having a massive advantage because football institutions have decided that it was the model to follow and get rid of the former sugar daddy model. How do you think italian clubs paid for the best players in the 80s-90s?
As for the bolded part that's a very reductive definition. Sugar daddy is simply a derogatory term for patron, some are good and others aren't. The Agnelli family are/were sugar daddies, as are Bayer, Moratti, Abramovich, R-L Dreyffus, Berlusconi, Pinault, as was John W. Gibson, as are King Power international, Fosun International, Volkswagen, Red Bull and many current and past owners. They are all essentially the same, they may have purses of different sizes but they are fundamentally following the same model which has been the dominant model in football because in the past TV deals and big sponsorship deals weren't a thing, it was mainly about gate revenue, many clubs didn't pay for their stadiums they didn't earn their gate revenues, it was handed to them by someone else whether the city or a patron, the other main source of revenue was patrons literally giving cash to the clubs.

And when it comes to fairness, I always find it uncomfortable because the vast majority of PL clubs have access to money that they never generated, they essentially are piggy backing on United, Arsenal and Liverpool backs. If we were talking about fairness then the model would be the one that La Liga had, individual TV deals, it's not egalitarian but it's fair. The three aforementioned clubs would be financially way above other british clubs and the likes of West Ham who have been shoddy for the entirety of their existence wouldn't have a turnover similar to Lyon, many english clubs are artificially wealthy they didn't do the work, they just happened to be in the same league than well managed and successful clubs.
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
439
Can't really be a super league if you are leaving out 2 of the best teams in Europe for teams chasing the Arsene Wenger trophies though.
PSG & City don't have the drawer power to be invited into a Super League. Utd for 1 have over half a Billion fans worldwide. There will be massive revenues generated by the Super League. The likes of Utd, Liverpool, Bayern & Barca won't agree to share the revenues with teams that don't generate anywhere near as much monetary value to the League as they do.
 

padr81

Full Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
11,880
Supports
Man City
PSG & City don't have the drawer power to be invited into a Super League. Utd for 1 have over half a Billion fans worldwide. There will be massive revenues generated by the Super League. The likes of Utd, Liverpool, Bayern & Barca won't agree to share the revenues with teams that don't generate anywhere near as much monetary value to the League as they do.
We'll see.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
We'll see.
Yeah, I don't buy it. All the rumoured super league plans included City and PSG, the one allegedly proposed by Florentino Perez had both of them as shareholders too? If there ever was a super league France wouldn't be excluded and PSG would be the first french club invited, the problem with City is that you seem to be more isolated when it comes to football politics and England has more major clubs.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
23,789
What does an ESL look like? The clubs who join such a monstrosity are banned from participating in their original domestic leagues and are left to die a slow, horrible death, while the rest of European Football moves forward with reforms that genuinely reduce the effect of money on the game, and give well run clubs a real chance to challenge at the top. Prudent spending and excellent youth development are rewarded. Wasteful spending is taxed.
Sadly, I don't think that'll be the case. The ESL could well thrive like a European NFL. TV companies and sponsors would be all over it.

I don't want it, don't get me wrong. I think it's the ultimate expression of the top clubs' neverending greed. But it might just work for them...
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
65,354
Location
France
Sadly, I don't think that'll be the case. The ESL could well thrive like a European NFL. TV companies and sponsors would be all over it.

I don't want it, don't get me wrong. I think it's the ultimate expression of the top clubs' neverending greed. But it might just work for them...
It's a bit weird because I'm caught between liking the traditional format and being one of the people who don't mind sugar daddies or the inherent unfairness of Football because I consider that Football clubs aren't equal, they don't come from the same cities or the same countries so I don't expect or absolutely want egalitarianism.
But at the same time, I'm curious to see how a super league with a realitively egalitarian system would be. It could be great but I suspect that they would botch the whole thing and make it extremely boring.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
23,789
It's a bit weird because I'm caught between liking the traditional format and being one of the people who don't mind sugar daddies or the inherent unfairness of Football because I consider that Football clubs aren't equal, they don't come from the same cities or the same countries so I don't expect or absolutely want egalitarianism.
But at the same time, I'm curious to see how a super league with a realitively egalitarian system would be. It could be great but I suspect that they would botch the whole thing and make it extremely boring.
I'm one of those who hates FFP because all it ever tried to do was cement the historical advantage of traditional big clubs. I don't think nation states owning football clubs is particularly healthy for the sport because certain clubs having unlimited resources just kills competition - but the traditional elite having nearly unlimited resources compared to the rest isn't exactly wonderful either, and that's where we are even without 'sugar daddies' (which, as you pointed out, have always been a huge part of football anyway).

So from that perspective, a super league could be interesting because at least no one has a massive advantage over the others. On the other hand it's hard to take something seriously that was created in order to maximise sponsorship income and nothing else. It's a bit soulless. I'm sure many people would love to see Real Madrid v Bayern München every week but for me it would quickly become mundane. And of course the national leagues would struggle as all the best players would want to play in this super league because that's where the real money and the biggest clubs would be.