What's wrong with the current format of the Champions League?

[Cardboard elk]

When the size of cities and market size, and popularity of a club decides upon the rules of the sports, then it is not FAIR. Football for all the people, except most of the nations?

My club had success in the 90s, reached the QF in the CL. Participated 10 years in a row or something through qualification. Beat several of the biggest clubs, incl. Real Madrid, Dortmund, Milan, etc.
This was achieved through the possibilites that existed before the transfer fees and tv rights money increased into giga amounts and skewed the market, with the worlds best coach and some great players in a member run club that STILL is run by the members and never will welcome any private investor to buy the club.

It is not fair any longer. Maybe when you do not give a crap about anything else than your own big club, and think you are entitled to more money, more privelige etc.

Is it a european contest any longer? No. It is a top 5 contest. Because the game, the rule, the economics have been set up to favor these nations. It is almost impossible to keep the good players in our leagues any longer, due to the money out there in the top 5 leagues. The money have fecked the loyalty of players, it have relegated smaller nations top teams to a lot smaller clubs than they used to be.

The entitlement of the top 5 leagues annoys me. I love to see my team against ANY team in Europe.
You have all become so spoiled you only want to watch against other big clubs with stars. Well, then maybe a Super League would be perfect for those of you that think that way.

In reality, the result of all the changes in football and the rules today already secures the big clubs a lot of success. And have pushed many clubs into obscurity.

We fans of smaller clubs support our teams just as hard, even thoug we might have 15-35k people in the stadium opposed to 50-80k. And I think football is more exiting and reaches a broader base of people if all nations leagues get relevant and get attention. Not just the same ones year after year.

But maybe I am getting to old. I remember a different time, before the primadonna stars and all the hideous salaries and transfer fees came and fecked it all up. And all this with greed and all, it is not just in football, the whole world is becoming more greedy, centralized and capitalistic.

 

[The Corinthian]

Pogue, you are a smart guy, but this comment doesn’t stand up. Do some research and you will probably be very surprised at how infrequently the best sides can and have faced each other. I posted earlier about how little Bayern alone have faced the other best teams of the last several years.

Really? Bayern have played loads of big games in the CL.

Last year, Bayern played PSG, Barcelona, Chelsea and Spurs.

The year before they played Liverpool (and at a push Ajax).

The year before that they had PSG, Real Madrid (and at a push Sevilla).

The year before that they had Atletico Madrid, Arsenal, and Real Madrid.

They year before that they had Arsenal, Juventus, Atletico Madrid.

The year before that they had Man City (and at a push Roma), and Barcelona.

The year before that they had Man City, Arsenal, Man Utd and Real Madrid.

The year before that they had (at a push Valencia), Arsenal, Juventus, Barcelona, and Dortmund.

So, in 8 years, they faced off against ESL members - Real Madrid 6 times (ie 3 ties), Barcelona 5 times (3 ties but 1 game lost due to Covid), Atletico Madrid 4 times, Man City 4 times, Arsenal 6 times, Chelsea 2 times, Spurs 2 times, Juventus 4 times, Man Utd 2 times (1 tie), Liverpool 2 times (1 tie).

That's 35 games in 8 years against ESL member teams.

Then there's another 3 games against PSG, and 1 game against their main rival in the Bundesliga.

So, we're talking 39 'big games' in 8 years. That's nearly 5 big games per season. And again, not including your not-so-big games like Ajax, Sevilla, Valencia etc.

 

[giorno]

It's also why I'm certain the $$$ numbers the Super League snake oil merchants were pitching would have not held up. As if the rest of European football fans would continue to ardently watch this competition, when none of their teams are involved in any way, even if only aspirationally.

Ah yes, all 3 of them, i'm sure that would have made a difference...

 

[TMDaines]

So, we're talking 39 'big games' in 8 years. That's nearly 5 big games per season. And again, not including your not-so-big games like Ajax, Sevilla, Valencia etc.

That, I would argue is not many games at all relatively speaking. In comparison, remember Bayern play everyone else in the Bundlesliga twice every single year - three times if they are drawn in the cup - walking the league for nine consecutive years. That's 34 games alone.

Even to get to 39 games over eight years, you are padding it with also rans. Including Arsenal and Spurs misunderstands their role in the push for the Super League. None of the big teams in European football are desperate for more regular games against Arsenal. They were patsies brought along to make up the numbers.

People are arguing in entirely contradictory terms. It's apparently sacrosanct that the biggest teams still play a round-robin format, playing everyone in their domestic league twice every single season, but in Europe the absolutely best clubs should be satisfied with only a few games a year against only a couple of their peers in terms of ability.

 

[giorno]

So many people talking about more equal distribution of money either don't quite understand what that implies, or they live in a fantasy world

You know who'd be the first to oppose the PL from "spreading the wealth" around? Boris Jonhson and those 14 PL clubs who desperately wanted to kill the superleague

 

[Pretzels81]

Too many teams.

UEFA's arrogant corruption.

 

[sparx99]

Istanbul and Moscow have bigger populations than London but Turkey and Russia don't have more qualifiers.

The "elite" countries have large fan bases because the game has been rigged in their favour. There's no reason Spurs should have a bigger fan base than Slavia Prague if all things were equal. Their onfield achievements haven't earned anything of the sort.

As you say, we already have advantages in terms of resources so why should we be handed more.

We shouldn't use the inequality that went before to justify keeping it going.

Right but if Moscow and the Turkish sides were more successful their league would gain more spots. We had the situation 4-5 years ago when Utd winning the Europa League helped keep the Premier league at 4 teams in the CL. We nearly lost a spot to Italy.

We’ve got to the distribution of teams we have now based on tournament performance. When was the last time a Turkish side or Russian side made it past the group stage? They don’t lack for resources.

 

[Chipper]

So many people talking about more equal distribution of money either don't quite understand what that implies, or they live in a fantasy world

You know who'd be the first to oppose the PL from "spreading the wealth" around? Boris Jonhson and those 14 PL clubs who desperately wanted to kill the superleague

Why would the 14 PL clubs oppose it?

More money being spread around the other European countries and less going to the English clubs who qualify for European tournaments would mean that the financial gap between the 'big 6' and the not so big 14 would be reduced, thus giving them more of a chance to compete with them on the pitch.

 

[diarm]

Right but if Moscow and the Turkish sides were more successful their league would gain more spots. We had the situation 4-5 years ago when Utd winning the Europa League helped keep the Premier league at 4 teams in the CL. We nearly lost a spot to Italy.

We’ve got to the distribution of teams we have now based on tournament performance. When was the last time a Turkish side or Russian side made it past the group stage? They don’t lack for resources.

I don't think how successful you've been in the past should have any bearing on how difficult it is to be successful in the future. Otherwise the gap just keeps widening.

If I had my way, you'd have the the winners of every European league qualify for the Champions League. We could have a straight knockout round before the first group stage and things would be totally unseeded.

Two big sides meet each other early on? That's sport. A minnow goes on a run to the latter stages? Amazing.

Allowing tv ratings and money dictate what countries should have more teams in the European Cup and which should have none isn't all that better than what the ESL were trying to do, no matter how often we tell ourselves it is or what window dressing we want to put on justifications for it.

 

[giorno]

Why would the 14 PL clubs oppose it?

More money being spread around the other European countries and less going to the English clubs who qualify for European tournaments would mean that the financial gap between the 'big 6' and the not so big 14 would be reduced, thus giving them more of a chance to compete with them on the pitch.

Because it means less money for them. Because it means losing the competitive advantage they have over the rest of the world. Less money for the english game in general, from the PL all the way to grassroots. Significantly less money. No financial gap with the top 6 might sound good in theory, but it also means no financial gap with ferencvaros, of dinamo kyev, or lille or ajax. It means no financial gap with your rivals, it means increased risk of relegation, while the top clubs would still dominate by virtue of being more attractive to top players thanks to their history and sheer size, oh and now you can't even improve by going out and signing better players, because they have no reason to leave their country to play for you

It is also a fantasy, because perfect equal share of revenue across the continent is not something that is actually possible to pull off

 

[Hansi Fick]

Ah yes, all 3 of them, i'm sure that would have made a difference...

Must admit that I don't understand your post. Maybe we misunderstood each other? What do you mean with 'all 3 of them'?

 

[giorno]

Must admit that I don't understand your post. Maybe we misunderstood each other? What do you mean with 'all 3 of them'?

What stopped the superleague were the fans of the clubs involved in the superleague. If they could get their fans(and players/managers) on board, they would have gone through with it, and yes, they would have made massive money off of it

The rest of the european fans don't really matter here because there is simply not enough of them to matter. Admittedly a bit of an exageration when french and german clubs pulled out, losing direct access to two of the 3 biggest european markets, but ultimately there was enough money in the markets involved, plus the international ones, to make it not only viable but hilariously lucrative

 

[Hansi Fick]

What stopped the superleague were the fans of the clubs involved in the superleague. If they could get their fans(and players/managers) on board, they would have gone through with it, and yes, they would have made massive money off of it

The rest of the european fans don't really matter here because there is simply not enough of them to matter. Admittedly a bit of an exageration when french and german clubs pulled out, losing direct access to two of the 3 biggest european markets, but ultimately there was enough money in the markets involved, plus the international ones, to make it not only viable but hilariously lucrative

You think the fans of the clubs that are not the SL 12 'don't really matter'?

 

[giorno]

You think the fans of the clubs that are not the SL 12 'don't really matter'?

From a financial standpoint? Besides Bayern and PSG, they really don't

 

[Hansi Fick]

From a financial standpoint? Besides Bayern and PSG, they really don't

Hmm. That kind of calculation seems completely delusional to me, but I'm no expert.

 

[Carl]

It should be the champions league. Only champions get in. And yes, i realise under those rules we would have never won in 99, but I honestly think it should just be the champions who get in. Would never happen anyway. It’s just money-ball now.

Don't get this point of view. Not these days anyway. A competition of just champions would be absolutely dreadful, and only have about 5 good teams in it, a couple decent teams and then a load of absolute dross. It would be of absolutely no interest to watch.

My only problem with it is that it obviously shouldn't be called the Champions League. But you fix the name, not the format.

 

[giorno]

Hmm. That kind of calculation seems completely delusional to me, but I'm no expert.

Real Madrid and Barcelona account for like 70% of football fans in Spain and like 80% of the total revenue generated by spanish football. Inter, milan and juventus in italy the same

The top 6 in england account for like 60% of football fans domestically and an even bigger slice of the revenue when you account for international markets

International markets by and large follow those clubs, as well. They wouldn't stop because they just created their own closed league where they get to play each other. The rest of the european markets, who already follow at least the premier league for the most part are in the same boat.

Under all the rhetoric, this is why UEFA reacted the way it did, why the leagues and FAs reacted the way they did. Because when it comes down to it, their very survival was at stake here

 

[Chipper]

Because it means less money for them. Because it means losing the competitive advantage they have over the rest of the world. Less money for the english game in general, from the PL all the way to grassroots. Significantly less money. No financial gap with the top 6 might sound good in theory, but it also means no financial gap with ferencvaros, of dinamo kyev, or lille or ajax. It means no financial gap with your rivals, it means increased risk of relegation, while the top clubs would still dominate by virtue of being more attractive to top players thanks to their history and sheer size, oh and now you can't even improve by going out and signing better players, because they have no reason to leave their country to play for you

It is also a fantasy, because perfect equal share of revenue across the continent is not something that is actually possible to pull off

Agree that it's a fantasy and don't think it would happen anyway. Trying to make it happen might actually force a superleague into existence after all. It would also cement the league winners of some of the very small countries in a position as perennial champions unless the money was distributed to Football Associations rather than clubs and then the associations also distributed it reasonably equally among their respective clubs as well.

I also understand the principal behind what you're saying but if weighing the numbers up I don't believe the other 14 would come to same conclusion you have. The money lost by their English rivals would have an impact on direct rivals, the money gained by teams in other countries who they don't even play would only have a negligible one.

I'm going to crunch some numbers based on last season later on because this season's competition is still in play and final revenue distribution hasn't been decided but I'm pretty sure Ajax would have had less too if everyone had equal shares. They might seem small to us and our clubs but they still got much more than teams from many countries. For certain a team like Ferencvaros would have more but I don't't see sponsors or viewers abandoning the Premier League in favour of the Hungarian one because they had an extra €20m or €30m, they're still going have less than any team who got relegated from the PL overall and it's not going to harm the commercial contracts that the other 14 could benefit from.

 

[giorno]

Ah, you mean even spread of strictly CL money? Yeah, all that would accomplish is further entrenchment of the status quo actually

 

[Chipper]

Ah, you mean even spread of strictly CL money? Yeah, all that would accomplish is further entrenchment of the status quo actually

Yes, that's what at least one poster called for in the thread, I thoughy you were referencing that. If not then fair enough.

 

[Njord]

Problem with European football today is that for most clubs it is impossible to be promoted to the best and most profitable league, where you have massive advantages in recruitment of both players and managers. This league is closed for every non-english club.

By expanding the CL the pull to play for someone like Porto or Ajax might be bigger. As it is today a lot of players will be thinking "6-8 games in the CL with Porto vs 38 PL games with Wolves", which is an easy choice. With more guaranteed CL games, the decision might change for some players.

I like it, as it should help even the differences for big clubs in smaller leagues vs mid sizes clubs in big leagues. What I don't like is qualification based on historical results. Every team should have to earn their place every season.

 

[RedDevilzFox]

Because it means less money for them. Because it means losing the competitive advantage they have over the rest of the world. Less money for the english game in general, from the PL all the way to grassroots. Significantly less money. No financial gap with the top 6 might sound good in theory, but it also means no financial gap with ferencvaros, of dinamo kyev, or lille or ajax. It means no financial gap with your rivals, it means increased risk of relegation, while the top clubs would still dominate by virtue of being more attractive to top players thanks to their history and sheer size, oh and now you can't even improve by going out and signing better players, because they have no reason to leave their country to play for you

It is also a fantasy, because perfect equal share of revenue across the continent is not something that is actually possible to pull off

Well said, idea of footballing version of 'socialism' is far more appealing in theory than reality. The reason we've been largely irrelevant (there are many) since ferguson is also the competitive nature of EPL due to influx of oil money and relatively fair distribution of wealth. Hell there was a time we used to pick other english clubs players at will, now we have to look in lust at players like Harry Kane knowing full well we have no chance.

 

[macheda14]

Yeah

but I also want an even financial playing field where clubs like Ajax, Club Brugge & Monaco keep their players. I’m talking purely hypothetical. It can’t happen because because of the money the gap between the champions of England & the champions of Norway for example is too great.

The issue with a champions league is pretty quickly there would be single team dominance in a fair few leagues. If City won two titles in a row, then the rest of the usual prem CL teams will miss out on a lot of European money, a lot of sponsorship PLUS there would never be a chance in hell of a player choosing another club over City.

 

[caid]

Real Madrid and Barcelona account for like 70% of football fans in Spain and like 80% of the total revenue generated by spanish football. Inter, milan and juventus in italy the same

The top 6 in england account for like 60% of football fans domestically and an even bigger slice of the revenue when you account for international markets

International markets by and large follow those clubs, as well. They wouldn't stop because they just created their own closed league where they get to play each other. The rest of the european markets, who already follow at least the premier league for the most part are in the same boat.

Under all the rhetoric, this is why UEFA reacted the way it did, why the leagues and FAs reacted the way they did. Because when it comes down to it, their very survival was at stake here

I fundamentally disagree with this. You cant have a football structure made up of 12 teams, or 15 or 20. If us 12 disappeared tomorrow we'd be forgotten in a decade and football would continue on largely unaffected. As english football did when blackburn or leeds went tits up. Our relevance has been drastically overstated in recent years.
The game would be dead in 10 years if you didn't have thousands of teams training and developing tens of thousands of players and the quality levels would nosedive without the larger football structure to carry it.
Real Madrid and Barcelona being the only relevant teams in la liga is why no one cares about the league, why no one wants to watch it. Its the reason why your league cant compete going forward. City have proven you can build a super club in 10 years. The premier league has proven that individual teams aren't the product, the competition is.

 

[giorno]

I fundamentally disagree with this. You cant have a football structure made up of 12 teams, or 15 or 20. If us 12 disappeared tomorrow we'd be forgotten in a decade and football would continue on largely unaffected. As english football did when blackburn or leeds went tits up. Our relevance has been drastically overstated in recent years.
The game would be dead in 10 years if you didn't have thousands of teams training and developing tens of thousands of players and the quality levels would nosedive without the larger football structure to carry it.
Real Madrid and Barcelona being the only relevant teams in la liga is why no one cares about the league, why no one wants to watch it. Its the reason why your league cant compete going forward. City have proven you can build a super club in 10 years. The premier league has proven that individual teams aren't the product, the competition is.

See, bolded part is just wrong. It is very much the individual teams that bring in the money, not the competition

As for your point, you are correct. Even a kid knows that, which is why those 12 clubs do as well. A chunk of the money from the superleague would have had to be destined to financing grassroots football, as sauron himself explained

 

[Rektsanwalt]

I don't think the current Champions League format is wrong at all. It seems to me to be working pretty fine, generally speaking. More of a problem is the unfairness in each individual national league that can be produced by the huge wealth that's generated by the CL clubs. In many cases that's actually the reason for a possible dysbalance in said national leagues. It's pretty safe to say that even if it does not create this dysbalance, it deepens one that already exists. Clubs like Real, Barca, Bayern, Juventus, PSG to a certain extent, too, would not have such dominant status without CL. If an even national league is a true goal, I'd say CL money is one of the most important factors to have an eye on. Problem with this is pretty obvious as well since it would help clubs that are actually not doing well and other clubs which are doing fantastic work are not properly rewarded. It's a thin line to create a system which creates equality in terms of wealth yet rewards top performances. I personally think such a step could never be done by the national leagues, as others might follow/might not follow, which would lead to top clubs of leagues in which CL money is distributed differently being kind of fecked. The UEFA itself should rethink their distribution system in their own interest, as a more equal distribution of money could help prevent seeing the same ties and faces over and over again in the CL.

But one thing imo is easy to see and has to go for good: the away goal rule. It seems arbitrarily, unfair and it has produced results which just didn't seem right at all, considering the complete difference of the two games in one matchup. In my personal opinion, that's actually one of the biggest flaws of the current CL. It annoys me so much to see clubs lose a game, have the same goal difference and yet progress just because of an away goal. I hate that rule. If the goal difference is the same in two matches, extra time plus eventually penalties seems to be to the best solution. It's luck/chance/randomness that creates such ties and it feels much more organic (and entertaining!) and in a way even more fair to let fate decide whether extra time plus penalties are played out in that clubs' stadium or in the others.

 

[caid]

See, bolded part is just wrong. It is very much the individual teams that bring in the money, not the competition

As for your point, you are correct. Even a kid knows that, which is why those 12 clubs do as well. A chunk of the money from the superleague would have had to be destined to financing grassroots football, as sauron himself explained

Your not selling Real Madrid.
Your selling a match between real madrid and a team no one cares about. You've done too good a job convincing us they're irrelevant.

 

[ti vu]

The issue is useless FFP and the way UEFA distribute the money to teams.

The risk of big clubs being eliminated earlier due to UEFA seeding system. Champions from smaller leagues may end up in Pot 1 and Pot 2, would mean strong teams got drawn to group of death. These strong teams got stuck with low coefficient points, and dead end as they eliminated each other early. The more strong teams eliminated early means wasted chance to make the money for the competition as a whole. So there is not enough viewer attracting games.

The finalist, even the winner, may make less than some teams eliminated in early rounds. Teams that draw more viewers ain't paid fairly according to their popularity, while some random unpopular teams gets more than they can attract.

Serious teams who aim to compete to win every year, would have the expense piled up by competing with oil money. UEFA doesn't seem to have answer to this.

 

[Giggsyking]

Fix FFP first, how is it fair PSG buy one player for a quarter billion from oil money and expect teams to compete with that?

 

[Abizzz]

See, bolded part is just wrong. It is very much the individual teams that bring in the money, not the competition

As for your point, you are correct. Even a kid knows that, which is why those 12 clubs do as well. A chunk of the money from the superleague would have had to be destined to financing grassroots football, as sauron himself explained

Remember those billion dollar TV deals for the ICC? I don't either.

 

[Desert Eagle]

When the size of cities and market size, and popularity of a club decides upon the rules of the sports, then it is not FAIR. Football for all the people, except most of the nations?

My club had success in the 90s, reached the QF in the CL. Participated 10 years in a row or something through qualification. Beat several of the biggest clubs, incl. Real Madrid, Dortmund, Milan, etc.
This was achieved through the possibilites that existed before the transfer fees and tv rights money increased into giga amounts and skewed the market, with the worlds best coach and some great players in a member run club that STILL is run by the members and never will welcome any private investor to buy the club.

It is not fair any longer. Maybe when you do not give a crap about anything else than your own big club, and think you are entitled to more money, more privelige etc.

Is it a european contest any longer? No. It is a top 5 contest. Because the game, the rule, the economics have been set up to favor these nations. It is almost impossible to keep the good players in our leagues any longer, due to the money out there in the top 5 leagues. The money have fecked the loyalty of players, it have relegated smaller nations top teams to a lot smaller clubs than they used to be.

The entitlement of the top 5 leagues annoys me. I love to see my team against ANY team in Europe.
You have all become so spoiled you only want to watch against other big clubs with stars. Well, then maybe a Super League would be perfect for those of you that think that way.

In reality, the result of all the changes in football and the rules today already secures the big clubs a lot of success. And have pushed many clubs into obscurity.

We fans of smaller clubs support our teams just as hard, even thoug we might have 15-35k people in the stadium opposed to 50-80k. And I think football is more exiting and reaches a broader base of people if all nations leagues get relevant and get attention. Not just the same ones year after year.

But maybe I am getting to old. I remember a different time, before the primadonna stars and all the hideous salaries and transfer fees came and fecked it all up. And all this with greed and all, it is not just in football, the whole world is becoming more greedy, centralized and capitalistic.

Great post and touches on many salient points. Money has become too important in sports and the only way to deal with it is a salary cap system. However that fecks the players up. It's a tricky topic because like you say it's not a football thing but a society thing seeping into football.

 

[Rektsanwalt]

Fix FFP first, how is it fair PSG buy one player for a quarter billion from oil money and expect teams to compete with that?

Yes, fixing and implementing a functioning FFP is definitely one of the most important aspects in this whole mess I'd say. But none of us truely believe that will happen in our lifetimes, right? The system is broken and the people who could change the system are the ones that benefit the most of this corrupt system. They won't change it. And their successors are bred in the same system, completely accepting its dynamics and want to profit themselves. Only continental wide government regulations or a financial collapse of the football world could lead to such a needed reboot. Change is not possible, it needs to be torn down and build up again, step by step and in the right way. And the government won't intervene and the football world won't collapse as long as the rest of the financial world is not collapsing. What I'm saying is basically we won't see any real fixes any time soon, maybe ever in our lifetime.

 

[Gio]

It is also a fantasy, because perfect equal share of revenue across the continent is not something that is actually possible to pull off

This is a spectrum though - between the ESL concept at one end and equal sharing at the other end. The current Champions League 'redistribution' sits pretty close to the ESL end of that spectrum. After all, your club gets 500 times what dozens of other clubs in the Champions League receive. Obviously there is scope to have more balanced redistribution that both supports competition and rewards success. And that would sit somewhere on the middle of that spectrum.

 

[carvajal]

When the size of cities and market size, and popularity of a club decides upon the rules of the sports, then it is not FAIR. Football for all the people, except most of the nations?

My club had success in the 90s, reached the QF in the CL. Participated 10 years in a row or something through qualification. Beat several of the biggest clubs, incl. Real Madrid, Dortmund, Milan, etc.
This was achieved through the possibilites that existed before the transfer fees and tv rights money increased into giga amounts and skewed the market, with the worlds best coach and some great players in a member run club that STILL is run by the members and never will welcome any private investor to buy the club.

It is not fair any longer. Maybe when you do not give a crap about anything else than your own big club, and think you are entitled to more money, more privelige etc.

Is it a european contest any longer? No. It is a top 5 contest. Because the game, the rule, the economics have been set up to favor these nations. It is almost impossible to keep the good players in our leagues any longer, due to the money out there in the top 5 leagues. The money have fecked the loyalty of players, it have relegated smaller nations top teams to a lot smaller clubs than they used to be.

The entitlement of the top 5 leagues annoys me. I love to see my team against ANY team in Europe.
You have all become so spoiled you only want to watch against other big clubs with stars. Well, then maybe a Super League would be perfect for those of you that think that way.

In reality, the result of all the changes in football and the rules today already secures the big clubs a lot of success. And have pushed many clubs into obscurity.

We fans of smaller clubs support our teams just as hard, even thoug we might have 15-35k people in the stadium opposed to 50-80k. And I think football is more exiting and reaches a broader base of people if all nations leagues get relevant and get attention. Not just the same ones year after year.

But maybe I am getting to old. I remember a different time, before the primadonna stars and all the hideous salaries and transfer fees came and fecked it all up. And all this with greed and all, it is not just in football, the whole world is becoming more greedy, centralized and capitalistic.

You're right. I still remember Madrid defeat in the 90s. Checking wikipedia I discovered that later you fell in a tough group where you finished above Parma!. Nowadays it would be much more difficult. As soon as a talent appeared in your youth team, the great teams would be sniffing from the age of 15.
Imagine,in an improved Super League, with a more than decent second division, you managed to establish yourself and attract attention.
It seems something more solid than some beautiful Champions League appearances that end up being fleeting, a few games against top teams.

 

[giorno]

Your not selling Real Madrid.
Your selling a match between real madrid and a team no one cares about. You've done too good a job convincing us they're irrelevant.

Let me put it this way: TV pay money to show the games, because by doing so they aim to make more money. They do so by pulling in audience - people watching the game. Therefore, the bigger the audience - or indeed, potential audience - for a game, the more valuable the game in the eyes of the broadcaster. Real Madrid has, say, 200m of fans across the globe. What this means is that the potential audience of a game involving real madrid starts at 200m people. This makes games involving real madrid very valuable to broadcasters. By comparison, everton and newcastle combine for, say, 3m fans. This means the potential audience for everton-newcastle starts at 3m people. That makes it significantly less valuable in the eyes of the broadcaster

The PL had to put rules in place specifically to prevent sky from just showing manchester united, liverpool, arsenal and chelsea(at the time, newcastle, everton, leeds and aston villa more than chelsea i guess) games and ignore everyone else. Because *those* are the games that bring in the money for sky. And thus, those are the games sky pays all that money to broadcast

Remember those billion dollar TV deals for the ICC? I don't either.

Ah yes, a friendly summer tournament, definitely comparable to an actual official one.....which for the record, the big clubs still do make money off of that, including decent tv money. Who pays to show crystal palace friendlies again?

This is a spectrum though - between the ESL concept at one end and equal sharing at the other end. The current Champions League 'redistribution' sits pretty close to the ESL end of that spectrum. After all, your club gets 500 times what dozens of other clubs in the Champions League receive. Obviously there is scope to have more balanced redistribution that both supports competition and rewards success. And that would sit somewhere on the middle of that spectrum.

I mean, i'm not sure there is a legal basis to make something like that happen. You're basically hoping a bunch of billionaire leeches would decide to prioritize helping external companies over profits

Wouldn't hold my breath for that

Also again, a more equal redistribution of money still takes money away from grassroots movement in the richer countries in favour of the poorer ones. There is no perfect solution. In all honesty, the best solution would be a european superleague. Not the aberration proposed by the dirty dozen but an actual paneuropean league that would effectively stand as the top flight league, subsuming and replacing the domestic ones

 

[desertegil]

There are non-champions in it.

 

[alexthelion]

When the size of cities and market size, and popularity of a club decides upon the rules of the sports, then it is not FAIR. Football for all the people, except most of the nations?

My club had success in the 90s, reached the QF in the CL. Participated 10 years in a row or something through qualification. Beat several of the biggest clubs, incl. Real Madrid, Dortmund, Milan, etc.
This was achieved through the possibilites that existed before the transfer fees and tv rights money increased into giga amounts and skewed the market, with the worlds best coach and some great players in a member run club that STILL is run by the members and never will welcome any private investor to buy the club.

It is not fair any longer. Maybe when you do not give a crap about anything else than your own big club, and think you are entitled to more money, more privelige etc.

Is it a european contest any longer? No. It is a top 5 contest. Because the game, the rule, the economics have been set up to favor these nations. It is almost impossible to keep the good players in our leagues any longer, due to the money out there in the top 5 leagues. The money have fecked the loyalty of players, it have relegated smaller nations top teams to a lot smaller clubs than they used to be.

The entitlement of the top 5 leagues annoys me. I love to see my team against ANY team in Europe.
You have all become so spoiled you only want to watch against other big clubs with stars. Well, then maybe a Super League would be perfect for those of you that think that way.

In reality, the result of all the changes in football and the rules today already secures the big clubs a lot of success. And have pushed many clubs into obscurity.

We fans of smaller clubs support our teams just as hard, even thoug we might have 15-35k people in the stadium opposed to 50-80k. And I think football is more exiting and reaches a broader base of people if all nations leagues get relevant and get attention. Not just the same ones year after year.

But maybe I am getting to old. I remember a different time, before the primadonna stars and all the hideous salaries and transfer fees came and fecked it all up. And all this with greed and all, it is not just in football, the whole world is becoming more greedy, centralized and capitalistic.

You get a 'like' (even though it's not real.

 

[Poltophagy]

Instead of United
vs

PSG
PSG
Leipzig
Leipzig
Istanbul
Istanbul

It could be something like:

United
vs

Real
Juventus
Dortmund
Sevilla
Ajax
Napoli
Benfica
Inter
Basel
Sporting

And you will have to get about 20 points from those matches to be assured of advancement.

For once I actually think this "money change" has some merit. More games is always a good thing if they are real games and doesn't screw up the schedule. And to be frank it is much more interesting to see your team play two top teams once instead of one top team twice. No laying back going for the draw at the away game, you really have to go for it.

 

[matt10000]

money ruined football. Teams who win their leagues have to go through qualifying rounds while teams who finish 4th 30 points behind the champions walk straight in.

It should be the champions league. Only champions get in. And yes, i realise under those rules we would have never won in 99, but I honestly think it should just be the champions who get in. Would never happen anyway. It’s just money-ball now.

I have no problem with top three or four clubs taking part they all get there on merit BUT for some to have to play in play offs is just wrong, you are either in on merit or you aren't.

 

[Abizzz]

Ah yes, a friendly summer tournament, definitely comparable to an actual official one.....which for the record, the big clubs still do make money off of that, including decent tv money. Who pays to show crystal palace friendlies again?

If the clubs are so much bigger than their leagues then why does it matter whether they are "official". The ICC is as official as anything the super league would have become. No one is arguing that Real Madrid isn't bigger than the 6th or 7th largest London side, however way more people do still care for Crystal Palace than say Real Madrid B. If Real Madrid is so fecking huge how isn't their second team larger than the 6th or 7th London side? Which itself isn't even one of the 15 largest PL sides...