European Super League plan

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]I'm excited. So a few US players will be affected. Yet other nation's super stars will not compete in the World Cup. I like US chances. [/quote]


It won’t be a real World Cup win just like Stage Cup no longer means anything either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible idea.
A few rich teams owned by oligarchs taking all the money. Bad for football, terrible for smaller teams and the awful for fans. So much greed and power from a very small group of people.
Very sad.

When someone invests billions of dollars in their franchise, they want to protect their investment. Super League is how they do that. Long gone are the times where local supporters are the ones who keep the clubs afloat. TV and merchandising are their primary revenue streams, not ticket sales. You also have many foreign owners with no allegiance to the old system that has been in place for decades. The American owners of clubs are probably the biggest supporters of a Super League being that is how American sports have operated, since their inception. There are more Manchester United fans outside of England than in it. They would rather see them play Real Madrid and PSG than watch them play Burnley twice a year. These big clubs have to make Champions League and do fairly well in it in order to pay these ridiculous prices for players. They are taking that gamble out of play to ensure they always get to that level. I actually don't blame them. They are a business and can do what they want. I don't really like it personally, but youth soccer here does the same thing just on a much smaller level. It all comes down to money in the end.

Soccer should not be following the US model.

Maybe not, but the fact is no team from outside the top 5 major leagues in Europe has won Champions League in over 15 years and that was Porto. Then you have to go back another 10 to find the second closest in Ajax. These smaller leagues have even less of a shot now then they did back then. This might make Europa League a better tournament and relative again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible idea.
A few rich teams owned by oligarchs taking all the money. Bad for football, terrible for smaller teams and the awful for fans. So much greed and power from a very small group of people.
Very sad.

When someone invests billions of dollars in their franchise, they want to protect their investment. Super League is how they do that. Long gone are the times where local supporters are the ones who keep the clubs afloat. TV and merchandising are their primary revenue streams, not ticket sales. You also have many foreign owners with no allegiance to the old system that has been in place for decades. The American owners of clubs are probably the biggest supporters of a Super League being that is how American sports have operated, since their inception. There are more Manchester United fans outside of England than in it. They would rather see them play Real Madrid and PSG than watch them play Burnley twice a year. These big clubs have to make Champions League and do fairly well in it in order to pay these ridiculous prices for players. They are taking that gamble out of play to ensure they always get to that level. I actually don't blame them. They are a business and can do what they want. I don't really like it personally, but youth soccer here does the same thing just on a much smaller level. It all comes down to money in the end.

Soccer should not be following the US model.

Maybe not, but the fact is no team from outside the top 5 major leagues in Europe has won Champions League in over 15 years and that was Porto. Then you have to go back another 10 to find the second closest in Ajax. These smaller leagues have even less of a shot now then they did back then. This might make Europa League a better tournament and relative again.

The current winner isn’t part of this super league

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible idea.
A few rich teams owned by oligarchs taking all the money. Bad for football, terrible for smaller teams and the awful for fans. So much greed and power from a very small group of people.
Very sad.

When someone invests billions of dollars in their franchise, they want to protect their investment. Super League is how they do that. Long gone are the times where local supporters are the ones who keep the clubs afloat. TV and merchandising are their primary revenue streams, not ticket sales. You also have many foreign owners with no allegiance to the old system that has been in place for decades. The American owners of clubs are probably the biggest supporters of a Super League being that is how American sports have operated, since their inception. There are more Manchester United fans outside of England than in it. They would rather see them play Real Madrid and PSG than watch them play Burnley twice a year. These big clubs have to make Champions League and do fairly well in it in order to pay these ridiculous prices for players. They are taking that gamble out of play to ensure they always get to that level. I actually don't blame them. They are a business and can do what they want. I don't really like it personally, but youth soccer here does the same thing just on a much smaller level. It all comes down to money in the end.

Hopefully the UK follows though and starts denying work visas to these teams- Man U can ether be all English or move to Asia. Either way, the fall out would be entertaining

[Anonymous]

Wasnt Premier League, which only began in 1992, a similar super league that broke from a 100 year old league? Seemed to work out ok for them. Maybe this will too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasnt Premier League, which only began in 1992, a similar super league that broke from a 100 year old league? Seemed to work out ok for them. Maybe this will too

EPL has promotion and relegation. There is also an argument that the EPL concentrated cash widening the gap between leagues and making it nearly impossible for a team to rise all the way to the top and meaning that a relegated team gets crushed by its wage bill increasing the likelihood of a spiral downward

[Anonymous]

Great result. Best teams play each other and they keep the money. Everyone will watch.

one or two US teams will be added before long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great result. Best teams play each other and they keep the money. Everyone will watch.

one or two US teams will be added before long.

It's all part and parcel of global fascism. Huge corporations, huge (soon to be global) government, big tech, big pharma, big olympics. Massive corruption everywhere. And all the wealth flows into the hands of a tiny minority and screw everyone else. Big soccer just latest small piece of the puzzle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible idea.
A few rich teams owned by oligarchs taking all the money. Bad for football, terrible for smaller teams and the awful for fans. So much greed and power from a very small group of people.
Very sad.

When someone invests billions of dollars in their franchise, they want to protect their investment. Super League is how they do that. Long gone are the times where local supporters are the ones who keep the clubs afloat. TV and merchandising are their primary revenue streams, not ticket sales. You also have many foreign owners with no allegiance to the old system that has been in place for decades. The American owners of clubs are probably the biggest supporters of a Super League being that is how American sports have operated, since their inception. There are more Manchester United fans outside of England than in it. They would rather see them play Real Madrid and PSG than watch them play Burnley twice a year. These big clubs have to make Champions League and do fairly well in it in order to pay these ridiculous prices for players. They are taking that gamble out of play to ensure they always get to that level. I actually don't blame them. They are a business and can do what they want. I don't really like it personally, but youth soccer here does the same thing just on a much smaller level. It all comes down to money in the end.

Right. UEFA tried to make a mandate that so many players must come from the country the club originates... LOL. This isn't 1950 where 99% of the players come from the country just like US college football doesn't have local boys playing who lived near the university. Lastly, Americans suggesting "won't watch" is taking one drop from the pool of $ these clubs will get. Sure, fans will boycott until they see their buddies going and enjoying the game... they will watch, love, travel, etc, just like always. Does anyone remember how Man U fans were going to boycott US ownership and they started wearing colors from Man U founding? How did that boycott workout? LOL... clubs will do what they want and fans will go. Change is hard, but they'll get over it.

[Anonymous]

The real crime is FIFA saying they won't players play in cups. Holy North Korea, Batman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great result. Best teams play each other and they keep the money. Everyone will watch.

one or two US teams will be added before long.

It's all part and parcel of global fascism. Huge corporations, huge (soon to be global) government, big tech, big pharma, big olympics. Massive corruption everywhere. And all the wealth flows into the hands of a tiny minority and screw everyone else. Big soccer just latest small piece of the puzzle.

It will be uninspired soccer after awhile since nobody can get relegated and they will keep receiving the $. No chance of a Cinderella story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great result. Best teams play each other and they keep the money. Everyone will watch.

one or two US teams will be added before long.

It's all part and parcel of global fascism. Huge corporations, huge (soon to be global) government, big tech, big pharma, big olympics. Massive corruption everywhere. And all the wealth flows into the hands of a tiny minority and screw everyone else. Big soccer just latest small piece of the puzzle.

Yeah. Once the Olympics started to allow professional players it was no longer entertaining.

The Miracle On Ice in 1980 was the last true fun event.

[Anonymous]

^ we already have pro leagues. The camaraderie and fun of the Olympics was ruined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great result. Best teams play each other and they keep the money. Everyone will watch.

one or two US teams will be added before long.

It's all part and parcel of global fascism. Huge corporations, huge (soon to be global) government, big tech, big pharma, big olympics. Massive corruption everywhere. And all the wealth flows into the hands of a tiny minority and screw everyone else. Big soccer just latest small piece of the puzzle.

A tad pessimistic for the morning.

The idea that the top clubs don't get more of the money they generate is not right. Now should they share some to promote the game -- yes. But not as much as they are now. Everyone will still compete full out because everyone wants to win. Only one tream can be champion but fishing at the bottom would not be good. Instead of moping around people should be happy. This league will run its course. A new one will emerge. This is just life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ we already have pro leagues. The camaraderie and fun of the Olympics was ruined.

Only reason team sports were added to Olympics was to make the entire Olympic spectacle worth watching at all. How is Olympic soccer a thing when there are like various levels of pro-leagues showcasing human achievements daily rather than ever 4 years..?