Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ball ball ball, footy footy footy. Ball ball ball. FOOTBALL!

So things have kicked off a bit in England over the Premier League’s “top six” planning to join at least 6 other European teams in forming a breakaway league of their own. Intended to be mid-week, they intend to continue to compete in their current leagues.

Seems this has created something of a hoo-ha. I know of at least one deeply unhappy Man Utd fan.

Article here https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56795811

Now. I’m not terribly interested in footy itself, so I’m struggling to understand why UEFA and FIFA are so pissed off. Pissed off to the point they’re threatening to ban every player in every team involved from international competition.

Given this is probably going to rumble on for a bit, wondered if any more interested and informed Dakkanauts might weigh in?

Like you I'm not a fan of the sport at all, but this surprised me. I suppose the governing bodies are pissed because they won't have such a monopoly over the sport in the future.

That was an initial thought for me too. Hegemonies don’t like being challenged.

But given people I know to be life long footie fans are upset by it, i think there has to be more?

I'm sure once the inconvenience remuneration envelopes arrive the honest as the long day officals at UEFA and FIFA everything will be fine

They say that football is 22 millionaires chasing a child's toy around a field.

Corporate football says 'hold my beer' and makes it 22 billionaires chasing a child's toy.....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Now. I’m not terribly interested in footy itself, so I’m struggling to understand why UEFA and FIFA are so pissed off. Pissed off to the point they’re threatening to ban every player in every team involved from international competition.

Given this is probably going to rumble on for a bit, wondered if any more interested and informed Dakkanauts might weigh in?

They're annoyed because the proposed competition would replace the Champions League, which is a big money spinner for UEFA. They're really annoyed because it's effectively the biggest clubs in the world setting up a cartel to keep themselves rolling in cash while shutting out the rest of the teams (save for some token "5 other teams totes get to play with the big boys"). It's hugely anti-competition because the big teams are assured of forever being the big teams by virtue of the closed nature of the competition. It goes against the concept of football being a meritocracy, at least in theory.

Yes, there's a pretty obvious link between money and being the best team but at the moment it's at least possible for a team like, say, Leicester to upset the big boys and win the EPL. Theoretically they could then go on to win the Champions League, as Porto did against all the odds about 20 years ago. This new competition takes that possibility away because it kills the Champions League. FIFA don't want a subset of clubs to start making decisions for their own benefit because it takes power away from them, if you're being cynical. But, it also shuts out every other team from competing or aspiring to compete at the top level. In that sense I completely agree with FIFA/UEFA. It's not what the fans want, it's not good for the game as a whole and it will only serve to further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.

Put it this way, when pretty much everyone except the teams involved are siding with FIFA/UEFA you know there's something wrong with the proposal.

I’m also not terribly interested in footy, but what's interesting about this for me is that the only people who seem to want this are the club owners - the fans and pundits all seem to be against it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And now apparently Jose Mourinho has been sacked by Tottenham Hotspur for not engaging with the European Super League.

Rumours are suggesting Mourinho's sacking has nothing to do with the new league proposals. I think that was just wishful thinking given how everyone but the clubs are against it. Seems more likely he was sacked because results have been terrible, and the quality of football even worse.

Interesting that Germany has probably the strongest, most unified national football federation of the big nations with all teams majority owned by fans and their top teams have confirmed they were offered a place in the ESL but rejected it.

It's awful on every possible level.

No fan in the world wants that. This superleague is the desperate move for a few clubs with hundreds of millions in debts to try to generate more profits, and maybe an attempt to catch new followers from extra EU countries. That's really just that.

Some club, like Juventus or a couple of english teams are also fearful to miss some editions of Champions League due to poor results in their national championships. With the superleague they'll never have that problem.

Only way to accept the superleague would require to ban the partecipants from their own national championships, otherwise there'd be a huge gap between them and all the other clubs, which will be unable to get any money from international competitions.

Slipspace wrote:
Rumours are suggesting Mourinho's sacking has nothing to do with the new league proposals. I think that was just wishful thinking given how everyone but the clubs are against it. Seems more likely he was sacked because results have been terrible, and the quality of football even worse.

Interesting that Germany has probably the strongest, most unified national football federation of the big nations with all teams majority owned by fans and their top teams have confirmed they were offered a place in the ESL but rejected it.

One of the BBC articles had something about German law limiting private ownership to 49% of football clubs, so the fans / fan associations always have the final say in the future of their club. And they said “Nooooo”. Seems like a good system to me (the German league, not the stupid ESL.)

it's clearly a cynical money grab by big clubs with big debts, and owners more interested in the short term than the long term

15 out of 20 permenant spots in a big money competition every year, yes please

as well as wanting to keep their monopoly FIFA is (probably) also concerned as when a sport fragments you can end up with a boxing situation with many different 'world champions

that said I think if it does go ahead the bans on players (or staff) who work in the new super league won't be as long lasting as FIFA/UEFA want, as in the EU/UK at least i'm sure they'd have a decent working rights claims, ban them while they're playing in it, sure, that probably viable, a ban that follows them if they leave, no chance

For a quick overview of just how stupid this is, of the "big 6" teams from England that are included in this proposal, 2 are currently outside the top 6 in the EPL and there's a non-zero chance Liverpool could also drop out if their current form doesn't pick up.

As far as the ban on playing for your country goes, I'm not sure worker's rights legislation would come into it. There are already requirements to be able to play for your country, one of which is to be registered as a player with your country's federation. There are already some restrictions on who can be registered, I believe, so I'm not sure what the legal position would be for players taking part in the ESL. I'm not even sure a national team player is an employee in the traditional sense. Extending any bans after players have stopped playing in the ESL does seem like it won't be legal but I'm not sure that's been proposed yet.

Slipspace wrote:
For a quick overview of just how stupid this is, of the "big 6" teams from England that are included in this proposal, 2 are currently outside the top 6 in the EPL and there's a non-zero chance Liverpool could also drop out if their current form doesn't pick up.

Yeah, and among those 6 there is Tottenham, which hasn't won anything in the last 12 years, won its last championship in 1961 and no international trophies in 130 years. But there's also Arsenal which won its last championship 17 years ago, doesn't compete for the title since ages and never won a single Champions/Euro League in its history.

In Italy there's Inter which never won anything in the last 10 years, Milan which only won a national supercup in the last 10 years and failed to qualify for the Champions League since 2013.

Most of the big 12 are currently "big" in the sense that they have lots of supporters, probably not even all of them as I don't think Tottenham or Atletico Madrid are particularly popular outside their countries.

Leicester and West Ham are currently better teams than Tottenham or Arsenal, while Atalanta, Lazio and Napoli are at least at the same level of Milan and Juventus. Probably even Inter, which is dominating the championship only because it was eliminated from Champions League at the group stage, and from the national cup at an early round. This European "Super" League is a joke.

That was my point as well, counting Tottenham, who have won nothing in a decade and nothing of value in 30 years as a big six club is self evidently ridiculous.

Football is cyclical in nature, and all it would take is a bored sheik or distracted Russian to utterly upend the status quo, to try and fix who the best teams are for time immemorial is just nonsense.

Well, for what it’s worth, Celtic and Rangers leaving the SPL would make it a lot more interesting, as pretty much every other team is just playing for 3rd place.

Yeah, you really don't get football if you think that's in any way comparable.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ball ball ball, footy footy footy. Ball ball ball. FOOTBALL!

So things have kicked off a bit in England over the Premier League’s “top six” planning to join at least 6 other European teams in forming a breakaway league of their own. Intended to be mid-week, they intend to continue to compete in their current leagues.

Seems this has created something of a hoo-ha. I know of at least one deeply unhappy Man Utd fan.

Article here https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56795811

Now. I’m not terribly interested in footy itself, so I’m struggling to understand why UEFA and FIFA are so pissed off. Pissed off to the point they’re threatening to ban every player in every team involved from international competition.

Given this is probably going to rumble on for a bit, wondered if any more interested and informed Dakkanauts might weigh in?

Why? They are starting up competing series competing for same money pool. Less money for uefa run　tournaments.

Unsurprising they don't take that happily.

Would you be　happy if somebody wants to start competing with you? And expect also to benefit from you as well?-)

In the end it always comes down to money


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
it's clearly a cynical money grab by big clubs with big debts, and owners more interested in the short term than the long term

15 out of 20 permenant spots in a big money competition every year, yes please

as well as wanting to keep their monopoly FIFA is (probably) also concerned as when a sport fragments you can end up with a boxing situation with many different 'world champions

that said I think if it does go ahead the bans on players (or staff) who work in the new super league won't be as long lasting as FIFA/UEFA want, as in the EU/UK at least i'm sure they'd have a decent working rights claims, ban them while they're playing in it, sure, that probably viable, a ban that follows them if they leave, no chance

Well the whole super league might run into faul with eu laws

Frankly it's a disgrace. Hilariously, after all of this news broke, Sky just made MNF free to watch, meaning they are cacking themselves over the outrage

I don't think they're (assume you mean Sky?) worried about the outrage so much as worried that the super league will be successful and Sky won't be able to dictate the broadcasting.

One of the pundits said that this is an attempt to franchise soccer in the same way that football is franchised in USA and I agree. Competition creates risk which means profits aren't guaranteed so the obvious commercial solution is to remove that competition and make it as bland as the NFL. The super league would reduce that risk making guaranteed money for the select few and enabling those select teams to retain their broadcasting rights.

This is something the likes of Man U and Liverpool have been fighting for years to get, exclusive exceptions to the broadcasting license meaning they retain the rights to show their games. Sky has obviously been fighting this for years and they would rather have the rights divided amongst a select group of broadcasters (Sky, BT, etc) than have the elite clubs retain their game rights.

I get the impression that the pundits (particularly Neville and Carragher) are sincere in their opposition to the super league, but it's damn convenient for Sky that this matches their agenda and they're only too happy to give these guys a platform to preach from.

Me, I say you can't stop someone going off and doing their own thing, but you also don't have to support them. If they set their super league games for the middle of the week then toy set their domestic league games to clash. If you don't field a legitimate team for more than a few games then you're expelled from the league. Take your ball and piss off if that's the way you want to play.

Sadly we see from the Nfl that this stale, nobody loses, everyone gets a medal, competition stifling can be commercially very lucrative, so it really is up to the fans as to whether they're prepared to put up with this.

Neville said he was disgusted with the six teams and tonight said he wanted Leeds to beat Liverpool because of this situation. Put your money where your mouth is Neville - say the same thing about Man U in thir next game, say you want Man U to lose. Will he? I doubt it. Fans will follow their teams wherever they go and as much as these pundits complain about it now, should it come to pass they will follow their teams into the super league like the good little boys they are.

This is just like all the different boxing federations all over again.
We know this does nothing good for the sport in general. If you have 2-3 "champions" at once it cheapens the mantle of champion.

BUT also- UEFA has been basically the biggest mafia after the catholic church in Europe historically.

I don't know what goes on behind the scenes at ownership level but im sure corrupt UEFA officials have basically rubbed people up the wrong way for too long and they have been talking to each other. Their reaction is very transparent and their fear of loosing any power is quite frankly funny. They are talking about getting MP's involved and trying to block this like they can just send their lackeys around to slap the owners.. Its very cringe. It means less power and money for UEFA/ FIFA and a break on their monopoly.

I don't really get why fans are not happy. They will still get to watch your team play football, so who cares?

EDIT: So I see the clubs forming this league would never face relegation and be a permenant fixture(Apparently they want 20 teams total in the competition) ... I mean they will just play each other then, coz I cant see any other club risking their standing with FIFA and the fans to join this, and get thrown out after one season even though they wil not be in the bottom spot and get relegated out lol. It seems like very lazy attempt to make sure they stay relevant regardless of performance..

The creation of the different boxing federations has done the sport a huge disservice.
Back in the day everyone knew who the world champion was. Now you can have 4 champions per weight class. By default this means that the mantle of "worlds strongest" no longer exists unless you get all the belts which have different rules I.E. some have mandatory defences meaning you will waste fights defending one belt rather then fighting for the next belt or taking on the best competition..

This is such a strange thread. Everyone keeps saying football when you are clearly talking about soccer.

 Henry wrote:
I don't think they're (assume you mean Sky?) worried about the outrage so much as worried that the super league will be successful and Sky won't be able to dictate the broadcasting.

Yes worried is the wrong word, but they're flustered. Trying to work out how they can try and capitalise on the whole thing. They've got control over the prem but not this and that's what eats at them. To me though, a lot of the criticism levelled at the super league has been levelled at Sky in the past. It's about greed and meaning that a lot of people lose out.


Super League has been coming for a while, football is a world of greed and has been for some time.

To me, football is about hope. On a good day, any team can beat anyone. That's the draw, that's the dream for any and all fans.

I think it's almost certain the ESL would want to set up their own streaming platform to control their own broadcast revenue. I'm not a fan of the way the formation of the EPL created such a disparity in finances between the teams in the top division and those below but at least it didn't destroy the football pyramid and we've seen a team like Leicester come from a lower league to win the EPL and now they look to have established themselves as fairly consistent Champions League contenders. That would all disappear with the ESL.

Florentino Perez, president of Real Madrid, has been explaining why this new league is needed. Apparently we're supposed to feel sorry for the most successful team in world football because their massive revenues don't cover their even more ridiculous costs. He's complaining the top teams are facing financial ruin. This from the guy who agreed to pay Gareth Bale £600k a week. There's no need for players to earn more per week than many people will see over a lifetime of work. Maybe if you stopped paying out those kind of sums to players you wouldn't be in this position in the first place?

It's kind of telling that when faced with financial problems these teams don't even think about cutting costs and instead look for ways to make more money, regardless of what that does to the nature of the competition. As one fan commented yesterday, these owners don't see the clubs as teams, they see them as brands.

turns out there's no good reason to pay these people that much money.
Turns also out that financial responibility is not something that the football world has.

BBC mentioned something about football’s trickle down economics, and how this is a threat to them.

I know we have the annual cup in the U.K., where it feels (to someone of my frankly staggering ignorance in the matter) it’s every league team vs every league team, and some enjoyable Giant Killing moments.

So, can anyone weigh in with an informed opinion about how if the ESL does go ahead, it might affect the Champions League? One assumes they’ll be excluded under UEFA’s threats. How might that benefit (or not) teams who normally miss out? Do you think we might see “invite the next team down the roster”, arguably opening up the Champions League to smaller teams?

 Blackie wrote:


Yeah, and among those 6 there is Tottenham, which hasn't won anything in the last 12 years, won its last championship in 1961 and no international trophies in 130 years.

Spurs won the UEFA cup in 1984, so I don't know what the feth you think you are talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


So, can anyone weigh in with an informed opinion about how if the ESL does go ahead, it might affect the Champions League? One assumes they’ll be excluded under UEFA’s threats. How might that benefit (or not) teams who normally miss out? Do you think we might see “invite the next team down the roster”, arguably opening up the Champions League to smaller teams?

It would hollow the Champions League out to the point where it becomes devalued, both in terms of prestige (a CL without RM, Barca, Juve, Man Utd, Liverpool is no such thing), but crucially in financial terms; the broadcaters did not pay huge sums for the right to televise West Ham Utd vs Atalanta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

beast_gts wrote:
And now apparently Jose Mourinho has been sacked by Tottenham Hotspur for not engaging with the European Super League.

If anyone really believes this, I have a bridge to sell them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


So, can anyone weigh in with an informed opinion about how if the ESL does go ahead, it might affect the Champions League? One assumes they’ll be excluded under UEFA’s threats. How might that benefit (or not) teams who normally miss out? Do you think we might see “invite the next team down the roster”, arguably opening up the Champions League to smaller teams?

When it first started the Champions League was pretty much just what it said it was - a tournament with the champions of the big footballing nations in Europe (along with a bunch of second-place teams to bulk out the numbers). Now it's expanded to include teams all the way down to 4th in the top leagues, while the champions of countries like Poland or Greece have to qualify just to get to the group stages where the big money is. The reason for this was so more teams from countries with more money could play, so the TV revenue could be increased. People will pay to watch Barcelona vs Chelsea but aren't so hyped about Bayern vs Club Brugge, for example. If the ESL goes ahead and UEFA kicks out the teams taking part you'll end up with matches like Cluj vs Everton which just aren't as attractive to as many people, reducing the amount UEFA can charge for TV rights.

Think of it more or less as a zero-sum game. There's only a certain amount of money to be spent on football (not entirely true as revenues do grow over time, but close enough for the analogy to work). The ESL teams are betting people spend the money on them. That money's going to come from somewhere, most likely from a reduction in spending on broadcast rights for other competitions. If they currently have 50% of the revenue being spent in football coming to them they want 70% instead (more likely 100%, as unrealistic as that is) and they think they can get it by controlling the "competition".

 harlokin wrote:


Spurs won the UEFA cup in 1984, so I don't know what the feth you think you are talking about.

True, my mistake. They actually won 2 Uefa cups and a Winners' Cup. Still, these are all trophies that were achieved decades ago though.

 Blackie wrote:

 harlokin wrote:


Spurs won the UEFA cup in 1984, so I don't know what the feth you think you are talking about.

True, my mistake. They actually won 2 Uefa cups and a Winners' Cup. Still, these are all trophies that were achieved decades ago though.

Yup. The thing is, the whole enterprise is financially motivated, so the clubs selected are those with the highest turnovers/net worth/fattest olligarchs.

There is an irony about the Premier League crying foul about the establishment of an 'exclusive money making cartel', when that was how and why they came into being in 1992. It's like a mobster complaining about being unfairly ousted by a more ruthless criminal.

The sad part is how the two sides are using the fans as an argument to be for/against. Overall, I think the idea is terrible but to think there is anything besides money in this is a bad joke.
Just some "high profile" criminals reclaiming a bigger share of the pie, move along.