Football Eats Itself

[RadioactiveWaste]

8 hours ago, Will the Ram said:

Real Madrid president Florentino Perez is claiming football is “sick”. He’s basically moaning because the “big” teams don’t play each other as regularly as he expects. He says that it would grow football if they did:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63110317

 

 

Matches between big teams are only meaningful if they've proved that they are the big teams by winning against the other teams.

That is how competitive sport works right?

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

24 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Matches between big teams are only meaningful if they've proved that they are the big teams by winning against the other teams.

That is how competitive sport works right?

His problem is the PL. In Spain there are 3 big teams and that is it, same applies to French and German league, Italy less so but still not as competitive. Forest spent more than Real Madrid i think.

The PL spent more in the August transfer window than all the top european leagues combined. When in France, friends and family always ask about the PL and getting tickets, in fact they watch it more than than Ligue 1. The PL is the ESL and he wants a slice of it.

[Ambitious]

Perez isn't exactly wrong in what he's saying. 

The truly big clubs, who have had a history of success and millions of fans around the globe, are passive supporters. You can't compare ourselves, a fan of Derby County, to a person in the Middle East following Manchester United or Real Madrid. They want to see the teams with the richest squads going against each other more often. We just want to see Derby at home on a Saturday 3pm. They're the ones who can bring more money to the game than ourselves. Money focuses the mind and pushes the envelope. 

I've mentioned it before that this is exactly where football is heading and there is far too much money to be made for owners of the huge clubs to ignore it. There will be a compromise somewhere, not sure when or how, but it's inevitable. 

[1of4]

The danger for fans may be the formation of a European super league. The real danger will be when the owners of clubs are allowed to move their franchise to another city or country. How long would it be before we'd see the Manchester Red Devils become the Bangkok Red Devils or the Arsenal Gunners become the LA Gunners.

[RadioactiveWaste]

3 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

The danger for fans may be the formation of a European super league. The real danger will be when the owners of clubs are allowed to move their franchise to another city or country. How long would it be before we'd see the Manchester Red Devils become the Bangkok Red Devils or the Arsenal Gunners become the LA Gunners.

Or Wimbledon become MK Dons?

I think where I sit with it is - the assumption that football clubs have to make ever more money. That's what needs to be challenged but never will be because those that run the sport cannot imagine any other reality. 

The notion that there is no natural limit to how valuable a bunch of professional ball kickers kicking a ball can be. They are ultimately, just kicking a ball around.

Are top footballers now better than top footballers 20 years ago? Perhaps, perhaps not. But 100% they're not better footballers because a top footballer today commands a higher salary than a top footballer of 20 years ago.

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

Why does it need to grow?

Because people like him have overspent.

Football needs to shrink, not grow.

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Why does it need to grow?

Because people like him have overspent.

Football needs to shrink, not grow.

I'd love to see football shrink, But we know that aint going to happen, Said it before...the super league will not go away, I'd wager those who were involved are still talking about it to each other.

Haarlands wages must be in the region of £500k a week at a guess, Clever of him and his agents to have a clause in his sell on contract at £50m ish, Where on the open market he'd fetch close on £130m+, Lunacy at the extreme, That's what "football is eating it's self" Is ☹️

[Comrade 86]

17 hours ago, Will the Ram said:

Real Madrid president Florentino Perez is claiming football is “sick”. He’s basically moaning because the “big” teams don’t play each other as regularly as he expects. He says that it would grow football if they did:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63110317

Meh. Perez can get in the bin.

?

[Bris Vegas]

15 hours ago, Ambitious said:

Perez isn't exactly wrong in what he's saying. 

The truly big clubs, who have had a history of success and millions of fans around the globe, are passive supporters. You can't compare ourselves, a fan of Derby County, to a person in the Middle East following Manchester United or Real Madrid. They want to see the teams with the richest squads going against each other more often. We just want to see Derby at home on a Saturday 3pm. They're the ones who can bring more money to the game than ourselves. Money focuses the mind and pushes the envelope. 

I've mentioned it before that this is exactly where football is heading and there is far too much money to be made for owners of the huge clubs to ignore it. There will be a compromise somewhere, not sure when or how, but it's inevitable. 

Every few years the CL gets a restructure which takes us closer to a Super League.

I mean, it wasn’t that long ago that only the top two PL sides went into the CL. Then it went three, then four.

And then they had another restructure which made it the top four from England, Spain, Germany and Italy because teams like Milan and Inter kept missing out.

The final stages of the CL now almost always contains the top four of each league give or take a few so PSG, Porto, Ajax or Benfica get in.

The latest restructure for 2024/25 is a league format so they can squeeze in another few rounds of big team clashes. 

As you say, they will keep restructuring before they ultimately get a Super League but the change won’t seem as sudden or dramatic.

[TigerTedd]

23 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Matches between big teams are only meaningful if they've proved that they are the big teams by winning against the other teams.

That is how competitive sport works right?

That is how competitive sport works, but it’s not how sports entertainment works. Ultimately, they’re looking for a WWE structure, where they can write the scripts, and decide the winners for the most drama. They should just re-release the sky series dream team in the Middle East and tell them it’s real. 

[Ambitious]

20 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Or Wimbledon become MK Dons?

I think where I sit with it is - the assumption that football clubs have to make ever more money. That's what needs to be challenged but never will be because those that run the sport cannot imagine any other reality. 

The notion that there is no natural limit to how valuable a bunch of professional ball kickers kicking a ball can be. They are ultimately, just kicking a ball around.

Are top footballers now better than top footballers 20 years ago? Perhaps, perhaps not. But 100% they're not better footballers because a top footballer today commands a higher salary than a top footballer of 20 years ago.

 

The revenues have gone up so that teams can afford these fees. I'm sure owners would love to be earning the revenues they are now, but still paying players like it was 20 years in the past. However, fans should be hoping their players get paid, not the owners - ultimately. 

It's difficult to find the exact values, but we can see that the money in the game since 2002/03 to 2022/23 is roughly 5x the figure. You had the top earning players taking home roughly £100k a week back then, now the top earning players are roughly around £400k so it's proportionate. 

The biggest difference is between the other 14 Premier League clubs and the Championship clubs, because the EFL hasn't grown anywhere near the same rate as the Premier League - unfortunately this disparity will only get worse and will need to be addressed. 

[TigerTedd]

4 hours ago, Ambitious said:

fans should be hoping their players get paid, not the owners

I’d rather the excess money was put back into the local community, and football clubs were run as not for profit social enterprises. But that’s just me. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, TigerTedd said:

I’d rather the excess money was put back into the local community, and football clubs were run as not for profit social enterprises. But that’s just me. 

It's not just you

[Sparkle]

6 hours ago, Ambitious said:

The revenues have gone up so that teams can afford these fees. I'm sure owners would love to be earning the revenues they are now, but still paying players like it was 20 years in the past. However, fans should be hoping their players get paid, not the owners - ultimately. 

It's difficult to find the exact values, but we can see that the money in the game since 2002/03 to 2022/23 is roughly 5x the figure. You had the top earning players taking home roughly £100k a week back then, now the top earning players are roughly around £400k so it's proportionate. 

The biggest difference is between the other 14 Premier League clubs and the Championship clubs, because the EFL hasn't grown anywhere near the same rate as the Premier League - unfortunately this disparity will only get worse and will need to be addressed. 

The EFL not growing at a decent rate is ridiculous really because Sky TV content in their football packages is held together by the EFL 

who really would pay the money they do for a soccer Saturday or midweek nights that can’t cover the EFL games not to mention the glorious Saturday afternoon with 3 non descriptive premiership games at 3-00 pm and a few badly timed live games on a Sunday - the sky sports package falls apart without the EFL in my opinion.