Well UEFA agreed that redistribution model in the first place. They can easily agree a new one. Nothing illegal about it. Opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.
What's wrong with the current format of the Champions League?
- Thread starter The Corinthian
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I’ve not really given much thought to this one before. The gap between the top clubs from major league and minor league champions is quite wide at present.
A solution that is explorable is stop including teams eliminated from the champions league in the Europa League. Allow these so called lesser teams compete amongst each other. The winner automatically goes into the CL. This will allow these teams a better share of money pot and gain more experience. The moment the CL clubs join in, it defeats the purpose of the EL. We fans of these top clubs piss on the competition anyway.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves the big clubs want to keep earning even when failing on the pitch. The creation of the ESL is nothing to do with performance or entertainment. If you see yourself a big club and want to continue dining at the top table EARN IT. Stop trying to cheat others out of their rightful accomplishments.
Secondly, it’s not the responsibility of our clubs to bail the Spanish and Italian clubs out of their financial issues. If the tables turn, they won’t create such a folly to get us going again but use the opportunity to assert dominance. How daft are these club owners? Do they not remember all the better players would rather play for those clubs whenever they come calling.
A solution that is explorable is stop including teams eliminated from the champions league in the Europa League. Allow these so called lesser teams compete amongst each other. The winner automatically goes into the CL. This will allow these teams a better share of money pot and gain more experience. The moment the CL clubs join in, it defeats the purpose of the EL. We fans of these top clubs piss on the competition anyway.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves the big clubs want to keep earning even when failing on the pitch. The creation of the ESL is nothing to do with performance or entertainment. If you see yourself a big club and want to continue dining at the top table EARN IT. Stop trying to cheat others out of their rightful accomplishments.
Secondly, it’s not the responsibility of our clubs to bail the Spanish and Italian clubs out of their financial issues. If the tables turn, they won’t create such a folly to get us going again but use the opportunity to assert dominance. How daft are these club owners? Do they not remember all the better players would rather play for those clubs whenever they come calling.
It's a friendly summer tournament that is treated as such by the clubs. If the clubs started treating it like an actual official - relevant - competition, things would change
I don't understand your point about real madrid B. But yes, real madrid *is* that fecking huge. As are Manchester United, Bayern, etc. That is why they make so much money in the first place. Have a look at the accounts of those clubs and how much money they make off commercial revenue streams. Then do the same for smaller PL clubs. The PL is rich on the back of Manchester United, not because of perceived competition or tradition or whatever
Their own money, With agreement from the clubs. UEFA does not have legal jurisdiction to force the PL to share its TV money with the rest of Europe. And still, market pool is a thing - most of the money paid by british broadcasters goes back to british clubs, since that's what british tvs are paying for. Etc.
What is a proper FFP?
To me spending 200 million on a player funded from uneven spread of TV monies is no better than it been funded from an external investment into a club. In the real world competitors not been allowed to seek investment to compete with an existing established dominant player is seen as anti competitive behaviour.
If we look at the regulation changes in the past decade in football, a lot of it is trying to keep the established elite entrenched in their positions, if the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City were blocked from investment we would still have the same problem, just with different clubs at the top of the pile. As an example the EPL likely would have been dominated by Arsenal and Manchester United in the years Chelsea, and Manchester City won it. So "less" winners.
This is the issue, because a truly fair FFP would be opposed by the elite clubs, a truly fair FFP would be the same fixed budget for each competitor, not based on revenue. A truly fair FFP would also block investment in players when the club has debt, as well as buying players using debt.
If a FFP is based on turnover and especially if then a few clubs enforce a stranglehold of money like they tried with the ESL, then you basically are setting up a system that's rigged.
With all this said it doesn't mean I agree with what's happening with clubs like Manchester City. I am just saying that what one person considers a fair FFP is considered unfair to another person. I am flabbergasted though that the current FFP ignores debt, and its basically allowed clubs to build up 100s of millions of debt (billions in Barcelona's case) without anyone batting an eyelid.
So you are comparing legitimate money earned by the club itself to oil state money pumped to laundry money or for propaganda?
So if I am famous and attract money, you want the same amount of money like me just because you appeared in a pic beside me? TV rights follow TV ratings, and if a united vs Liverpool attracts 700m viewers a game around the world how is it fare to equally share the money with a small club that attracts nobody?
Every business in the world is in debt, its normal, its is how you function the debt and how much revenue you make that counts.
Well as I said people are never going to agree. External investment can be argued to be just as legitimate, if I buy shares in a company and the company uses that money to better itself, is it not legitimate? You basically want a locked out financial system in football to preserve existing status of clubs.
I would be more on board if at the same time clubs were not trying to hold onto huge shares of TV and competition money. I got no issue from revenue of things like shirt sales and stadium revenue, my issue is the greed on share of TV money, I have an opinion that TV money should be equally spread across participants as well as awarding progress in competition's (which in turn actually usually benefits the bigger clubs anyway). If that was accepted by the elite, then I would consider some flexibility on revenue spending.
You cant make that argument though when you trying to block external investment. Also is Barcelona's debt sustainable or a bubble waiting to burst?
If you want to follow normal business rules then debt can be allowed sure, but also external investment is allowed.
So is it a sport or a business? It is not a lock out of financial system, united made that status themselves through their rich history and prestige in football. Why is it strange?
That's what you need to ask yourself, if FFP rules are based on sporting fairness, you forbid debt, and have fixed budget per team.
If its based on business rules you allow debt and external investment.
But you seem to be wanting rules that benefit your own club the most so the best of each. A bit like how a billionaire wants socialist tax rules alongside capitalist market.
My personal opinion is equal share TV money but then "do" allow revenue based FFP, although also take into account debt. That I feel is compromise on everyone's side but about as fair as we will ever get it. In that instance the giants would still have a big spending power advantage as they have massive sponsorship deals and overseas shirt sales, but it wouldn't be as ridiculous as they trying to make it with unfair distribution of TV money.
Last edited:
Funny how everton and newcastle are being payed more for their game than Real Madrid. Funny how the everton and newcastle game will have a hell of a lot more than 3m people watch it and Real will have a tiny fraction of 200m. You've justified turning your league into a 3rd rate product no one cares about with these stories while reality continues to piss all over this narrative.
You started a war with Uefa and dropped a nuke on european domestic football to go into a league with arsenal, milan and spurs - and dont seem to recognise how utterly dumb and brainless it is. You've got a dozen teams in your backyard who'd more than adequately fill the role of these clubs. Do you think being in league with Manchester City would be a good thing? Do you seriously think they're a boon to the premier league?
We haven't played a match against each other in 8 years or so and you seem to think this is a bad thing - its not. It'd be pointless, you'd have slaughtered us 99 times out of a 100. We've been utterly boring and inept for the huge majority of the time and the gap in quality would have made it redundant. The novelty would have carried a game or two after which no one would care. Playing games against the teams who actually earned the right to play you - leicester, liverpool, spurs will have always produced a more enjoyable, higher quality product.
Wake up, look after the league on your doorstep. Get over the idea your the best team in the world and are entitled to the best players in the world. Your not, you aren't - reality is going to be kicking you with this fact repeatedly in the near future. Get used to it and rethink how you approach football as the story you've been telling yourself over recent years has caught up with you.
United as a club was not in debt before the Glazers, it is the FA and PL responsibility who gave the green light to this ownership. Do you think it is fair united has paid 1 billion pounds to serve the owners debt and to fill their pockets with the dividends money? If you ask me I would forbid debt. But that is unrealistic causes football clubs are businesses in some degree now then we should accept the current operating form with regulation like FFP that should be respected.
Or perhaps stipulate that debt can not exceed 10% of club's overall value.
My understanding is our club is worth approx. £3bn with our debt at around £0.5bn which is 16.7%.
They should stipulate that all clubs cannot have debt above 10% of overall value.
That metric is pretty sustainable for most clubs, it's just when you're looking at figures in the billions region, the amount you're paying for interest and servicing the debt becomes eye watering.
My understanding is our club is worth approx. £3bn with our debt at around £0.5bn which is 16.7%.
They should stipulate that all clubs cannot have debt above 10% of overall value.
That metric is pretty sustainable for most clubs, it's just when you're looking at figures in the billions region, the amount you're paying for interest and servicing the debt becomes eye watering.
Last edited:
Trying to fix the distribution of money in the Champions League when the money that each league makes is completely different is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
If I understood your post correctly, do you mean Madrid or non PL clubs should get bigger money than PL clubs as PL as a league makes lot of money?
Maybe they should this year tbh. Both them and Barcelona in particular look quite damaged. But more importantly maybe teams like Rosenborg should get a bigger cut
If we follow the same logic, shouldn't other La Liga teams get bigger share (from La Liga revenue/La Liga TV deals) as they have very low revenue compared to Madrid and Barca?
Nothing is wrong with it, people will say too many dead rubber games but in reality its the fact that Barcelona are q billion in debt, other big clubs are paying too much in wages,
They wanted a quick injection of money to help,
Teams like Lfc and Juventus may drop out this season so less money so something was going to happen
They wanted a quick injection of money to help,
Teams like Lfc and Juventus may drop out this season so less money so something was going to happen
Yep. The proposals should increase the diversity in matches, and as said before could be expanded to allow a wider array of teams in the CL proper, including more national champions, including more clubs from the strongest leagues. The beauty of Swiss is that it is very scalable.
Sorry this is just so wrong I don’t know where to begin. If the 12 teams disappeared, football will struggle to maintain its status as the most popular sport on the planet.
The 12 account for 50%+ of all football fans in the world and many will just give up.
English football has many more levels than Spanish or German football, are you seriously suggesting the quality of the EPL has more to do with that than the money influx?
Real, Barca and Bayern have all been far more successful than any English club in Europe for decades.
The individual clubs are the product, that’s why United get huge sponsorships whereas Fulham don’t. By you logic surely it’s cheaper to sponsor a few smaller clubs than United
No, they're saying a more equal share of CL/EL money changes nothing. Either you force equal share of domestic AND EL/CL money across all leagues, which cannot be done unless the leagues in question agree to it, or there is no point to change things
Sponsorships and revenue aren't necessary for a healthy sport. Barcelona being 1.2 billion in debt doesn't seem healthy regardless. The game has carried on without Milan and Ajax, its carried on without Benfica, Celtic and Red Star Belgrade. Why wouldn't it carry on without us as the main actors? We aren't the main actors recently and i wouldn't wish Moyes, Van Gaal's or Mourinho's united on the sport, it was pretty grim stuff. Football has marched on regardless, no one seemed too pushed when Leicester won the league. I dont even think the Premier League is good or healthy, its just seems so much better off than la liga which Perez has kind of embarrassed
I dont know, i'm speculating. More money doesn't seem the answer to their problems. I wouldn't be adverse to sending a share to leagues rather than individual clubs. Or just giving teams like Feyenord and Club Brugge type teams a larger cut of the pie than their current participation necessarily warrants. I dont think the shrinking circle of relevant clubs has been a good development of the sport.
It would make a big difference to plenty of teams and leagues on far smaller budgets. While it doesn't resolve wider trends in the game, it's a clear step in the right direction.
The need to talk in absolutes isn't healthy here. There are no magic bullets, but there's plenty that can be done to reverse trends where the only end game is the ESL.
If the ESL allowed more merit based promotion and relegation, it would actually have solved many if the issues we currently have with the CL. Incredible how badly they played out that idea. It beggars belief.
Then most of the owners won't sign up for it. The jeopardy behind the footballing pyramid is what makes the sport exciting for us, but a nightmare for these crony capitalist owners. They hate uncertainty - hence why they were so giddy on the idea of a closed elite club with nothing at stake.
Barcelona are very badly run, I think we can agree on that.
Milan and Ajax didn’t cease to exists, there was a downward spiral when they went from competing at the top to struggling somewhat. But both have maintained their status as some of the better supported clubs in their league.
You could say the same of United post-Sir Alex.
You were suggesting if the 12 clubs ceased to exist and the football world can carry on like nothing happened?
My view is that many supporters of those clubs will just give up on football altogether
I think we can find a balance.
For example allow promotion and relegation to be based on a 3 year performance period rather than 1 year. It would give clubs more stability and allow for longer term planning, for both those who seek promotion and those who want to avoid relegation.
Yeah, its hyperbole. A city like Madrid losing its main football club wouldn't be without cost. Teams like Hull and Wimbeldon problems weren't insignicant. I guess i was thinking of it more as a they never existed hypothethical. I presume in real world example some phoenix club would be formed? I'm sure a lot of supporters would drift from the sport. I dont think the fate of football would be that tied to their future overall though. All 12 disappearing overnight would be an interesting challenge
It would help the various FAs and the grassroots/amateur levels, at the cost of further entrenching the top clubs at the top of their leagues
But wouldn't really change all that much as far the top leagues, or indeed the european competitions go. The big clubs would still dominate, because they make so much more money from domestic TV rights as well as commercial revenue
Based on 19/20 CL revenue share, an equal share would get every team qualifying for the group stage a fixed €42.6M, plus the performance related earnings. That's not enough money to make a serious difference, not when manchester united are making €200m from the PL, real madrid are making €150M from la liga, and ajax are making €10M from the eredivisie
Throw in the commercial revenue, stadium revenue, etc, and you're basically just melting the tip of the iceberg - what's underneath is still gonna sunk you
The difference with the English game is it would survive without the ESL clubs, Barcelona and Real Madrid made a mistake by only thinking about their global presence. They cant even fill their own stadiums for every league game as their own fan base is only properly interested in the glory games.
So yes sanctioned competitions would probably nosedive in terms of global interest, but the English game would go on and that's what's most important for most fans of the non ESL clubs. The UEFA competitions however which rely on the global market so heavily could have problems.
However the chairman of EPL clubs don't agree, and the ESL has collapsed. So its hypothetical scenario and we go on as before.
So yes sanctioned competitions would probably nosedive in terms of global interest, but the English game would go on and that's what's most important for most fans of the non ESL clubs. The UEFA competitions however which rely on the global market so heavily could have problems.
However the chairman of EPL clubs don't agree, and the ESL has collapsed. So its hypothetical scenario and we go on as before.