Jump to content

European Super League


AndyinLiverpool

Recommended Posts

I also think a "superleague" would get very stale, superleague clubs being the biggest because they are in the superleague instead of being the biggest because they proved that by winning at football would become uncompetetive and boring.

even then, unless the bring in American style gimmicks to even up the superleague after a few years they'll be a usual top 4 then a drop off in that league. Then break away league those 4....then..2....

An unchecked free market will always tend towards monopolies and collusion, because genuine competition gets in the way of making money. when you've eaten all the small fry and the only other fish in the tank are big enough to stop you trying, the inevitable way forward is to arrange to divvy up the spoils rather than cut each other to the bone (in my humble)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's a power grab by FIFA to take money away from UEFA and put it into the envelopes addressed to Zurich rather than Nyon.

The clubs, especially the nominated 11 'founders' that can't be relegated won't exactly object because it gives them a nice bargaining position with UEFA next time the TV rights money comes to be distributed for the Champions League.

I welcome it though because I think it would fail.

The market for football is already extremely saturated, I'm not sure that the appetite is that much higher amongst fans to watch PSG vs Barca on a Saturday evening rather than Man City v Spurs in the Premier League.

Football is not like other capitalist endevours though because the end game would need at least two clubs to enable the sport to continue, rather than simply end up with one giant hegemonic corporation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/11/2018 at 21:42, richinspain said:

Or blame Derby County, the first club that tried to introduce shirt sponsorship.

Or Jimmy Hill for pushing through the abolition of maximum wage.

Or Bosman's lawyer, that changed the game forever.

Or Sky Sports for their saturation and frigging stats to nth degree.

Or even controversially the annoying armchair fans who've never been to a game in their life but try to educate others on how the beautiful game should be played.

Or the stupid money men who hire and fire at the drop of the hat and have turned over all the power to players and more so agents.

I miss the days of TinMan Ted and Stuart Pearce. proper football, proper footballers and proper atmospheres.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

Or Jimmy Hill for pushing through the abolition of maximum wage.

Or Bosman's lawyer, that changed the game forever.

Or Sky Sports for their saturation and frigging stats to nth degree.

Or even controversially the annoying armchair fans who've never been to a game in their life but try to educate others on how the beautiful game should be played.

Or the stupid money men who hire and fire at the drop of the hat and have turned over all the power to players and more so agen

All symptoms of an underlying malaise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I kind of resent the money distribution I'm not sure levelling it out would make much difference ultimately.

Lets say clubs have very similar revenues from TV so could afford a greater range of top players, could you see say Hazard wanting to come to Derby instead of Chelsea. Or Kompany going to Burton. Large city based clubs with big crowds and off field attraction would still win out.

Even today some lower Prem teams struggle to get top players despite massive income, due to where they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

Whilst I kind of resent the money distribution I'm not sure levelling it out would make much difference ultimately.

Actually there is good data to show it would make things worse.

There was an interesting analysis in Soccernomics that showed that the more a handful of teams dominate a league, the more popular it becomes.  It sounds counter-intuitive doesn't it? But it works like this:

Most people aren't interested in a good level of competition or close matches or a level playing field.  What they are interested in is backing a winner.

In a league where only a handful of teams could possibly win, fans' chances of picking and supporting a winner are substantially increased.... which in turn leads to greater interest and greater spend for the casual supporter... which (I know we don't like to hear) is actually most people. It's the armchair fans who stump up their money to Sky each month to see Chelsea, Man U or Liverpool win yet again against an also-ran Prem team.  More even competition for these supporters is NOT good.

It's in a league's interest to have a unequal distribution of finances to maintain overall income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:

Actually there is good data to show it would make things worse.

There was an interesting analysis in Soccernomics that showed that the more a handful of teams dominate a league, the more popular it becomes.  It sounds counter-intuitive doesn't it? But it works like this:

Most people aren't interested in a good level of competition or close matches or a level playing field.  What they are interested in is backing a winner.

In a league where only a handful of teams could possibly win, fans' chances of picking and supporting a winner are substantially increased.... which in turn leads to greater interest and greater spend for the casual supporter... which (I know we don't like to hear) is actually most people. It's the armchair fans who stump up their money to Sky each month to see Chelsea, Man U or Liverpool win yet again against an also-ran Prem team.  More even competition for these supporters is NOT good.

It's in a league's interest to have a unequal distribution of finances to maintain overall income.

So in essence a super league of "even" clubs is doomed to failure due to lack of interest. Like it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FindernRam said:

So in essence a super league of "even" clubs is doomed to failure due to lack of interest. Like it!

Maybe.

A traditional football league structure where only one team can be the winner each year would certainly work against them.

But there are other approaches.  Take the NFL for example, where the 32 teams are split into divisions of 4.  In that scenario 8 teams get to be winners of their division every year.  Fans have a 1 in 4 chance of backing a 'winner'. It's a fiendishly clever system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...