Originally Posted by
Optimistic Nick
I am obviously speculating wildly, but this thing only works if you've got a broadcaster or broadcasters with the money to gamble on it and have commited to doing so. The usual candidates are very clearly caught out by this and are very clearly and openly not involved: BT Sport, Sky and DAZN all saying "not me". The obvious choice is therefore Amazon.
I completely agree that this would become a US-style franchise system with lots of American owners, backed by an American tech company (massively speculating) and set up by an American investment bank. I think it will have a very American flavour and I suspect it would go on tour globally. And I can actually see why that would look attractive and sensible to many - superficially, having a league with the best players in Europe where games are played globally for the benefit of a global audience: as a standalone product, what is not to like? In particular when viewed through a US lens where franchises are the norm and leagues are closed because no other country really plays the main US sports.
And to be honest, the behaviour of the top clubs and their ability to spend (not generate - spend) billions of pounds has distorted finances so completely that even average players are now sold for tens of millions, and earn many millions themselves. It makes no sense and whilst the ESL would formalise the elimination of competition and make it absolute, the effect of money on the game has all but done that already.
Which is why I think this could, actually, be a good thing. Let them go and have their global league and market it wherever they can. The clubs and players CANNOT be allowed to compete in FIFA-approved competitions or leagues so in effect it becomes a separate sport. I don't really see the harm in allowing players to switch between the two, in the same way that some American atheletes can and do switch between NFL and baseball (although international football would be closed to them while contracted to ESL clubs). I think there should be no crossover at club level - no concept of other clubs getting "promoted" to the ESL, or any competition where the clubs from the two sports can compete against one another.
I also suggest that as this is a franchise, the ESL clubs are not allowed to bear the names of the towns or cities where they were once based - there is no point in pretending any more that Man Utd are there to represent the people of Manchester, so the city of Manchester ought to deny Utd the right to call themselves Manchester. They could simply be "United" or something. Doesn't matter.
Not sure if country governments could prevent the broadcasting of rights of the ESL in country e.g. whether the UK government could prevent ESL being broadcast on a legitimate service in the UK. If it can then it should, to protect the importance of the domestic league system that we would keep. And governments in Italy and Spain may choose to do the same, if that is allowed. No idea.
So you let them make their money elsewhere and I've no doubt that they would put together a very attractive product.
The biggie really is what does it mean for the rest of us? I don't really care if my league has been "devalued", whatever that means. Will it reduce the cost of TV rights packages? Almost certainly. Will it reduce the interest of billionaire owners? I suspect so - one would assume they'd want an ESL team to own. So will the money flowing into the game reduce? Yes - but so what? Players will get paid less, and the "best" players may jump to ESL. I can live with that.
Overall I think it will increase competition and variability and level the playing field and result in a better competition in domestic leagues and European competitions.
Would there be a nagging doubt that the winner of the EPL - say, Leicester - are not really the best club in the country and so it removes legitimacy from the competition, like when Utd pulled out of the FA cup that season? (They should never have been allowed back in after that btw). I'm not sure. these ESL clubs are going to be pariahs and I'm not sure they are going to have enormous local support, so I think the idea that a club called Reds United that sometimes plays in the UK and sometimes does not and whose games are not broadcast through legitimate channels in the UK and competes mostly against non-UK teams is somehow a British club would be weakened significantly. We don't care whether this year's EPL winner is the best team in Europe or the world, so I'm not sure we'd really care whether Leicester are better than teams playing in some other unconnected league. And as a Cardiff fan I'd still want us to get to the EPL and win it; and progress to Europe and win that too. Would I care that there is a MoneyLeague out there that we might lose our best players to? Probably -but the levelling of the playing field would outweigh that. ANd what is more, the level playing field would be the asset that the existing leagues would then have to compete for audience with the ESL, so I would hope there would be good commercial reasons for them putting in new rules to ensure this is the case. Salary caps being the obvious one. And that would be good for competition, which I think is good for the "value" or enjoyment of the league.
Real Madrid were bleating on about losing audience as football has become stale. They don't get it do they? It's become stale because the money that clubs like Real have has extinguished competition. By doubling down on the Galacticos concept being the solution and not recognising that it is the problem they are going to be clearing the way for the domestic league to provide that which I think most fans want to see- fairer competition, and not just the right to be steamrollered by the superclubs a few times a season.
Handled well, this could be the turning point for the sport but not for the benefit of ESL clubs, but the rest of us. Off they should jolly well ****, we will thrive without them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote