River City Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Seeing the whole G-14 vs UEFA debate got me wondering. What if the richest clubs just got together and formed their own super league all across the world? Division 1 could be LA, NY, Mexico, Rio, Johannesburg, Dubai, Madrid, Barcelona, Glascow, Manchester, London, Paris, Rome, Milan, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney with all clubs raking in obscene amounts of money. With the potential owners this could attract, I'm sure the league could afford its own airline, tv channel, etc Imagine the New York team owned by Bill Gates, coached by Capello, fielding Cech, Puyol, Nesta, Terry, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldinho, Ballack, Totti, Makelele, Henry and Shevchenko playing against Tokyo owned by Sony, coached by Scolari, fielding Kahn, Gallas, Maldini, Cannavaro, Stam, Beckham, Messi, Gerrard, Zidane, Ruud and Eto'o. Holy crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 FIFA and UEFA better wake-up and stop acting like idiots. Pro clubs deserve a spot at the table. They are the ones who invest in the players. They are the ones who develop the players. It's funny cause wasn't UEFA a couple years ago threatening to withdraw from FIFA over money and the World Cup hosting rotation? Plus UEFA is the one who basically ended any discussion of a World Cup every 2 years because they didn't want to lose the Euro Cup which is much more valueable to UEFA, even though a World Cup every 2 years would be much better for the game internationally in my opinion. There is no way a European Super League is not happening. The big pro teams are leaving too much money on the table. Smaller clubs don't have a hope in hell of winning domestic leagues, nevermind European competitions. The interesting thing would be if it ever reached a point where the big clubs separated, and FIFA didn't allow players on those teams to play in the World Cup (I'm not sure they could legally, nor do I think it would ever reach this point). But I wonder whose side players and fans would take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Well it actually looks like clubs might be barred from Champions League and UEFA Cup action as early as next year unless they "formally declare their support for UEFA". http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1738128,00.html What is the UEFA Champions League if not a quasi-European Super League? UEFA really needs to remove their heads from their asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I think to understand what is happening you have to look at little details in European sport and law to grasp the tactics of the G-14 (which is now some 18 clubs I think). One is the success of the stronger basketball clubs in Europe in breaking away from the ULEB, the official organization, and setting up their own EuroBasket, a champions league that is similar to the football model. Oddly enough, the official FIBA-sanctioned body organizes a second level tournament which would be the equivalent of a UEFA cup. Given this model UEFA and FIFA are rightly worried. One factor was how the basketball teams AND leagues partially breaking away were so hard to ban, as they pull the weight in their respective countries (mostly Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Balkan nations, Israel, Germany, Lithuania). The same would happen in football if a breakaway occured. Another factor is legal. The Bosman ruling broke national rules, that were in turn supported by UEFA. It introduced the idea that not even FIFA, the governing body, could be above European law, shared by the powerful football nations in the region. It is one thing to threaten a club in Kenya or El Salvador for going to court against an international rule, quite another to challenge 25 European nations all bound by UE law. One last thing about club ownership: four clubs in Spain are owned by the fans, who vote democratically in their elections. These are Madrid, Barça, At Bilbao and Osasuna. There may be a few more in lower divisions. To paint the G-14 as an alliance of big businesses and empresarios owning big clubs is wrong in at least two cases: Madrid and Barça are owned by dozens of thousands of mostly middle class folk, they do not represent big business, in spite of the big budgets and professional management. So when I hear Blatter going on about elitism, I would have to ask what is more democratic: a club like Barça with 145,000 members, maybe 120,000 with voting rights; or FIFA, a monopoly with its 190 odd members who each delegate their interests into a single vote, many being paid off to vote this way or that come election time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 What I wonder about is the Players Unions. Is there something in the EU recognizing unions crossing national lines? On our side of the Atlantic, NHLPA, NBAPA, MLBPA support is needed before international events are held. (usually) The G-14 plus 4 want compensation from UEFA and FIFA for use of players during international events. But what I was wondering is there anything going to Players Ass'ns, retirement funds, life after pro soccer education kinda funds etc. as an example. Just what do players get out of international duty as a group? Where do the profits of European tourneys go? After all it's the players who are the stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 More news: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Soccer/2006/03/27/1508059-ap.html Manchester United wants the Champions League to revert back to a 17 game schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by argh1 What I wonder about is the Players Unions. Is there something in the EU recognizing unions crossing national lines? On our side of the Atlantic, NHLPA, NBAPA, MLBPA support is needed before international events are held. (usually) The G-14 plus 4 want compensation from UEFA and FIFA for use of players during international events. But what I was wondering is there anything going to Players Ass'ns, retirement funds, life after pro soccer education kinda funds etc. as an example. Just what do players get out of international duty as a group? Where do the profits of European tourneys go? After all it's the players who are the stars. Player unions are in general not significant in Europe. In N American style leagues with franchises the leagues are like businesses, the players in alliance as the main paid workers. They are one of sports' estates. In Europe now the national and especially EU labour laws apply. There are no salary caps, usually no strict binding codes for behaviour outside of FIFA rules and how they are interpreted, and players under contract have the right to go to their jobs and do them (ie train; not allowing a rebel player to train could now be interpreted as mobbing and be considered illegal, but by general law, not football law). You will find that initiatives that could be related to the function of player's unions, like pension funds, funds for injured players forced to leave football, drug rehab and other similar support, even financial management, veteran's associations, are usually left in their essential aspects to the workings of the European social welfare state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 It seems strange to me that there is no European Professional Players Ass'n. As evolved as soccer is in Europe it seems strange that players haven't demanded a role in the game other than playing. After all without players support niether UEFA,FIFA, nor G-14 would be able to hold any competitions. I can't speak for all leagues but in the UK (which is what I follow mostly) alot of clubs are indeed businesses and are publicly traded. Any way, I don't want to change the focus of this thread it stikes me as odd that the clubs want compensation, but the players haven't spoken up that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by River City Seeing the whole G-14 vs UEFA debate got me wondering. What if the richest clubs just got together and formed their own super league all across the world? Division 1 could be LA, NY, Mexico, Rio, Johannesburg, Dubai, Madrid, Barcelona, Glascow, Manchester, London, Paris, Rome, Milan, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney with all clubs raking in obscene amounts of money. With the potential owners this could attract, I'm sure the league could afford its own airline, tv channel, etc Imagine the New York team owned by Bill Gates, coached by Capello, fielding Cech, Puyol, Nesta, Terry, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldinho, Ballack, Totti, Makelele, Henry and Shevchenko playing against Tokyo owned by Sony, coached by Scolari, fielding Kahn, Gallas, Maldini, Cannavaro, Stam, Beckham, Messi, Gerrard, Zidane, Ruud and Eto'o. Holy crap! Holy crap? That's basically what we have today! Except the teams are based in Europe only, playing in front of full stadiums as opposed to an empty stadium in a part of the world where nobody would care. But in terms of quality, both those teams you are no better than the current Barcelona, Chelsea, Juventus, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I was watching a Juventus match last week. I quote, "It's nice to see a full stadium. Juve's champions league attendance has averaged 14000 fans." I am not convinced the PR for such a league would be accepted by local fans as ticket prices would sky rocket. I would love to watch this league, but it would really kill clubs such as Bolton, Royal Chareloi, and Livorno - clubs that won't ever reach the quarterfinals of the champions league unless Abramovich' brother purchases them. That said, these g14 clubs would rake in millions upon millions through sponsorship alone - so would they really care if Juve was only playing in a 1/4 filled stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted March 28, 2006 Author Share Posted March 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Holy crap? That's basically what we have today! Except the teams are based in Europe only, playing in front of full stadiums as opposed to an empty stadium in a part of the world where nobody would care. But in terms of quality, both those teams you are no better than the current Barcelona, Chelsea, Juventus, etc. By going global they would 1) increase the overall tv/sponsorship money available to be had 2) attract the world's richest owners/corporations 3) remembering that these are business people, they do look for opportunities when they can find them. This would be an elite, business club where spin-off investments could be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by River City By going global they would 1) increase the overall tv/sponsorship money available to be had 2) attract the world's richest owners/corporations 3) remembering that these are business people, they do look for opportunities when they can find them. This would be an elite, business club where spin-off investments could be made. #2 yes. But I think it'll only attract 3 or 4 rich owners. ie. only for the USA and middle-east teams. Maybe Australia. In Asia, international football is already king so nothing will change. #1, I don't see how TV money would increase at all. No extra money will come from Asia since, as I said, the current big football clubs (in Europe) are already much bigger in Asia than the local Asian clubs. Meanwhile, in North America I still think domestic football will dominate even with an int'l league. Ditto for South America. In any event, its not feasible because of: A) the travel. Even if the concorde was brought back into existence, teams could only play 30 games per season tops! Hence, less revenue. Football is a cultural phenomenon in most of the world. What North Americans think of football (ie. that its cool to follow it) is not typical of the ROW. People who grew-up in, say, Buenos Aires bleeding blue & yellow OR red & white, aren't suddenly gonna develop passion for a Buenos Aires provincial club that's full of Brasilians and English players. [8)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted March 28, 2006 Author Share Posted March 28, 2006 quote:Originally posted by amacpher #2 yes. But I think it'll only attract 3 or 4 rich owners. ie. only for the USA and middle-east teams. Maybe Australia. In Asia, international football is already king so nothing will change. #1, I don't see how TV money would increase at all. No extra money will come from Asia since, as I said, the current big football clubs (in Europe) are already much bigger in Asia than the local Asian clubs. Meanwhile, in North America I still think domestic football will dominate even with an int'l league. Ditto for South America. In any event, its not feasible because of: A) the travel. Even if the concorde was brought back into existence, teams could only play 30 games per season tops! Hence, less revenue. Football is a cultural phenomenon in most of the world. What North Americans think of football (ie. that its cool to follow it) is not typical of the ROW. People who grew-up in, say, Buenos Aires bleeding blue & yellow OR red & white, aren't suddenly gonna develop passion for a Buenos Aires provincial club that's full of Brasilians and English players. [8)] Wow! Thanks. I'll have to stop the planning ASAP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.