Super League - is it really a bad thing?

[JumpersforGoalposts]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

Is Manchester big enough for two clubs? Can London accommodate a fourth? Oh look, New York isn't that far a distance away on a plane...

There is only one club in Manchester, the other one plays in the neighbouring city of Salford.

[City123]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

I may be out on my own here, but I think the reaction to the super league may be a bit of an over-reaction.

I can understand Eufa’s point – but this is their own fault – they should have seen this coming and altered the competitions to accommodate the “super” clubs – football has changed so much of the last 20-30 years but Eufa haven’t kept up – and now they stand to lose a hell of a lot of revenue.

The premier league itself has got a bit stale – apart from the top 4 clubs the most excitement is whether you’ll get relegated or not – only Leicester outside of the super clubs have won the PL since it’s inception 30 years ago. Now it could be a more exiting league like it used to be in the 60’s and 70’s when an array of clubs won it.
Kick the top six out – let the bottom 3 stay in and the top 3 from the Championship go up – the championship then will also be exciting next year as well – hell we might stand a chance of going up!

The winners of the Super League could play the winners of the CL, or the CL changes it’s format to allow some sort of invitation to the SL.

The premier league broke away from the Football League 30 odd years ago – everyone said it was the end of football – but it wasn’t it actually took the game to another level – now it’s time to move on again.

UEFA have been appeasing these clubs for years, this latest reform was them appeasing these clubs yet again. They've gone too far this time and UEFA have rightly told them to go f*ck themselves

[Toadstool]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

Yes, it would indeed be a very bad thing.

A European Super League in the format that has been suggested would greatly devalue the Premier League, which would in turn greatly devalue the Championship and the rest of the English pyramid. It would kill off the League Cup (maybe not such a bad thing) and the FA Cup (a very bad thing). It would greatly devalue the Spanish and Italian domestic leagues and it would pretty much kill off European club football as we know it.

It would also be very, very boring.

It is an idea that has no upsides whatsoever.

I think seeing the top European sides, and therefore the top players playing each other on a regular basis would be a good thing from an entertainment perspective.

Different teams would also qualify for the CH - assuming the Super Six are kicked out of both competitions - so you'd have Leicester, West Ham, Everton & Leeds in the CH next season.

The aspirations of the Championship clubs would be more than just stay in the PL, for example Norwich next season would think they have a chance of getting to Europe - not just fighting relegation or settling for mid table security.

[City123]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

Yes they do want to stay in the PL - but if they get removed it's not the end of the world - if they stay then, yes I agree your scenario is valid - however you can sort of see it from the clubs point of view - a team like Liverpool won't get into the PL next year, whereas TNS will....

Because TNS would have earned their place in the competition. That's the point of sport, teams don't have a God given right to play in these competitions, they have to earn it.

Arsenal for instance already have massive advantage but have squandered it through poor decision making, why should they be rewarded for poor decisions and another club (Leicester) punished for consistent good decision making and performance?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

kick em out

[NYCBlue]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

They dont want to leave the PL though.

They want to play midweek and pocket all the additional revenue.

The League wont be better off without them. It will have a serious knock on affect.

However I dont see any other choice. They should be kicked out.

This.

[Llandaff Blue]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

I think seeing the top European sides, and therefore the top players playing each other on a regular basis would be a good thing from an entertainment perspective.

Different teams would also qualify for the CH - assuming the Super Six are kicked out of both competitions - so you'd have Leicester, West Ham, Everton & Leeds in the CH next season.

The aspirations of the Championship clubs would be more than just stay in the PL, for example Norwich next season would think they have a chance of getting to Europe - not just fighting relegation or settling for mid table security.

There is no chance the CL can co-exist with this league. Who is going to watch Norwich vs Spartak Moscow when Barca/United is on at the same time? The CL essentially becomes a lesser version of the Europa League.

[Toadstool]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

There is no chance the CL can co-exist with this league. Who is going to watch Norwich vs Spartak Moscow when Barca/United is on at the same time? The CL essentially becomes a lesser version of the Europa League.

Well the Norwich and Spartak fans would!

But if the CL can co-exist with the Europa League, then surely the CL & SL can co-exist?

[Optimistic Nick]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

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.

[Llandaff Blue]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

Well the Norwich and Spartak fans would!

But if the CL can co-exist with the Europa League, then surely the CL & SL can co-exist?

I don't think so, the EL benefits massively from having some of the big boys qualify or fall in at the KO stages, even then the viewership is declining.

Maybe I'm wrong but I cannot see how European football would survive, there would be barely any money in it if the ESL is on during the week

[StraightOuttaCanton]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

I've noticed that some people write Eufa. Why is that? Were they called this at some point in the past?

Yes, at least by the British press

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

There is no chance the CL can co-exist with this league. Who is going to watch Norwich vs Spartak Moscow when Barca/United is on at the same time? The CL essentially becomes a lesser version of the Europa League.

Whilst there was a half decent game the other night between PSG and Bayern Munich, generally matches involving two 'top' sides end up in stale, boring affairs. I'll always prefer a Championship match on Sky to say, Man U v. Arsenal. Great footballers don't necessarily make great football.

[The Lone Gunman]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

The aspirations of the Championship clubs would be more than just stay in the PL, for example Norwich next season would think they have a chance of getting to Europe - not just fighting relegation or settling for mid table security.

Premier League teams from outside the so-called Big Six who have qualified for European competition during the last ten years:

Birmingham City, Burnley, Everton, Fulham, Hull City, Leicester City, Newcastle United, Southampton, Stoke City, Swansea City, West Ham United, Wigan Athletic, Wolverhampton Wanderers.

If clubs such as Manchester United, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus and Liverpool are no longer involved in the Champions League, it will no longer be the Champions League. It will be a pale shadow of the current competition and nothing more than a glorified version of the Europa League. Meanwhile, the Europa League itself will simply disappear due to a lack of funding. It would be totally unsustainable.

Broadcasters pay what they do currently for the Europa League safe in the knowledge that a few of the big boys will appear in the competition every season, either having had a poor domestic season previously or having been eliminated from the Champions League early.

This season's Europa League round of 16 contained no less than four clubs who are involved in the ESL - Arsenal, Spurs, Manchester United and AC Milan. This is why the broadcasters are currently interested in the competition. Remove the biggest, best-supported clubs and the Europa League's value drops dramatically, as is the case with every competition that would be affected by the ESL.

The knock-on effects of this nonsense would be enormous and anyone who believes it would somehow be beneficial to anyone except the clubs who are involved in it is, in my opinion, deluded.

[lardy]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

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.

Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are all owned by Americans, so this occured to me too.

[jon1959]

Re: Super League - is it really a bad thing?

David Squires' take:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2021/apr/20/david-squires-on-the-plans-for-a-european-super-league