About time UEFA addressed competitive imbalance.

[argh1]

Okay just a pet peave.

But c'mon, look at this years CL round of 8. PSV maybe Roma are underdogs. But it's the same ol' same ol'.

Unless your a follower of the rest of the CL teams what keeps fans interest up?

I dunno what UEFA can do but over the last few years the competitive imbalance in Euro domestic leagues has gotten outta control.

Either that or I'm just upset Lyon chocked, again

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by argh1

Okay just a pet peave.

But c'mon, look at this years CL round of 8. PSV maybe Roma are underdogs. But it's the same ol' same ol'.

Unless your a follower of the rest of the CL teams what keeps fans interest up?

I dunno what UEFA can do but over the last few years the competitive imbalance in Euro domestic leagues has gotten outta control.

Either that or I'm just upset Lyon chocked, again

I like how you say "Lyon choked". Most people (erroneously) refer to that team as a cinderella story (they are actually one of the richest clubs in Europe -- #5 iirc). They get easy draws in the round-of-16 and quarterfinals (if they make it that far) in CL year-after-year yet keep crashing out of the competition early.

They are big-time chokers!

But to answer your question, UEFA can start by treating the G-14 members the same as the rest of the clubs. Giving the richer clubs preferential treatment leads to only one possible conclusion. Lets watch what they do to Inter and Valencia regarding that brawl. 2 G-14 clubs == slap on the wrist. [}]

[amacpher]

There is actually an article in Champions magazine on this topic right now.

They measure competitive balance using a bunch of different criteria.

Although, contrary to your perception, in Champions League its not the same ol' same ol'. 10 different semi-finalists in the last 3 seasons. 8 different champions in 10 years. And the money UEFA gives-out to the teams that qualify for Europe is actually quite balanced (compared to the difference between clubs playing in the same domestic league).

And there never existed a golden period where there was lots of competitive balance. La Liga has always been pretty much the same way as it's been the past 10 years. The EPL has gotten slightly less competitive when you look at the # of different clubs finishing in the top 4 over the last 10 years compared to, say, the 1970s.

[argh1]

Okay just to continue my argument. How many of the last 16 semi-finalists have never been there before?

For domestic leagues I'll pick on EPL..

Derby may be promoted this year?

What are their chances of staying? What are their chances of making UEFA club competitions?

What keeps the fans of divsion 2 or 3 clubs hoping knowing once the make it to div 1 they'll probably go right back?

Look at the SPL, they tried making grounds rules to get away from promotion/relagation but have backed away some.

When will Belgium have a serious contender in CL again?

Will every Euro club be looking for a multi billionaire to bank roll a championship team like Chelski?

Yeah, I know just arguments. But what can UEFA do to grow and spread the game beyond the "same ol', same ol'."

There's a whole thread here on Serie A and dwindling support. I wonder how much of this has to do with only so many teams having success, over and over again?

Or has Euro soccer become like minor pro/Junior/NCAA, baseball/hockey/basketball/football where the selling point is the stars of tomorrow playing in the future on one of the few elite teams that always make it to UEFA club titles?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by argh1

Okay just a pet peave.

But c'mon, look at this years CL round of 8. PSV maybe Roma are underdogs. But it's the same ol' same ol'.

Unless your a follower of the rest of the CL teams what keeps fans interest up?

I dunno what UEFA can do but over the last few years the competitive imbalance in Euro domestic leagues has gotten outta control.

Either that or I'm just upset Lyon chocked, again

Football teams do not get any more favourable draws than tennis players. You are no. 80 in the world and if you can't beat a top 20, ever, you will never be seeded and will always start tournaments playing another top 20.

True that tennis is an individual sport and the finances are not so important. But if you look at the history of the European Cup and of great leagues there are teams that were once great now in the dumps and others that were lower division duds pushing into the top 16 or 8. What more can you ask for?

I don't get what you want to do, force the stronger teams to lose? Make it easier for the crappier teams to win? I just don't understand the argument.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Football teams do not get any more favourable draws than tennis players. You are no. 80 in the world and if you can't beat a top 20, ever, you will never be seeded and will always start tournaments playing another top 20.

True that tennis is an individual sport and the finances are not so important. But if you look at the history of the European Cup and of great leagues there are teams that were once great now in the dumps and others that were lower division duds pushing into the top 16 or 8. What more can you ask for?

Yes, but will those up-and-downs ever happen again? I think that's the question being asked here. Will Man United ever have another down period? Will Notts Forest ever be great again? Will clubs in leagues outside the big 5 ever produce a great team ever again?

What can UEFA do? Well, they can propose a salary-cap. And they can ensure TV revenue gets evenly distributed throughout each division. That would be a beginning.

[bettermirror]

Amacpher, the answer to all of your "will they ever..." questions is an inevitable YES.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by bettermirror

Amacpher, the answer to all of your "will they ever..." questions is an inevitable YES.

Of course these changes will happen. Hell, Vilareal was a goal from playing the Champions final, and it is in a crappy little town with no football tradition ever, at all, until the last 7-8 years.

Leeds went quite far just a few years ago as well, look at them now.

I can recall modest teams that have knocked Barça out of the European Cup, like Metz or Viking Stavager of Norway. I recall losing a league, the one with Ronaldo at Barça, simply because we lost both at home and away to Hercules, a side that lasted a year in top flight.

I don't get the idea that just because some stronger sides win more, we should change the system so they don't. Make them coach more poorly. Have them misspend when buying new players. Force them to have infighting and lose that team atmosphere. Convince the local press to slag the players so they lose motivation.

There are a lot of good ways to have a weaker side win if you want, but by changing the rules altogether?

[argh1]

I'm not saying that clubs should lose on purpose or that rules be changed.

I'm only asking how the game can move forward in Europe if the competitive nature of the game continues to move more and more towards an ever increasing smaller number of clubs.

Every fan wants the team they support to do well. If a newly promoted club can't compete, what keeps the turnstiles moving.

I'm not suggesting UEFA change the rules of the game. But maybe change how revenue is distributed or even capping team payrolls. I dunno really?

But where will UEFA domestic leagues be 20 or 50 years from now if the current trend (maybe only percieved) continues If the fans know who the top 4 or 5 teams will be year after year?

At what point will the fans give up if the most your club can hope to achieve is staying out of the relagation zone?

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Of course these changes will happen. Hell, Vilareal was a goal from playing the Champions final, and it is in a crappy little town with no football tradition ever, at all, until the last 7-8 years.

Leeds went quite far just a few years ago as well, look at them now.

I can recall modest teams that have knocked Barça out of the European Cup, like Metz or Viking Stavager of Norway. I recall losing a league, the one with Ronaldo at Barça, simply because we lost both at home and away to Hercules, a side that lasted a year in top flight.

You're still talking about something else. Nobody doubts that you'll still get surprises in Cup competitions (like Villarreal last season) because of their knockout format and random draws. Anybody can win on any given day.

The worry is that the power-house clubs (hint: not Villarreal or Hercles) around Europe will continue winning a higher percentage of their matches, making tense title-races a distant memory and having the top of the table look the same nearly every season. Just look at the EPL, Serie "A" and La Liga final tables over the past 10 seasons and you'll notice that the top teams are getting more and more points each season, and the bottom clubs are getting less and less. There is no denying a trend exists there. And there is no denying that this is a bad trend.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

There is absolutely no evidence for this theory that there are fewer and fewer clubs able to compete in leagues and in European competitions. Not only that, even suggesting it betrays a huge failure in basic soccer history: when the European Cup was five years old how many clubs had won it? How competitive was it 45 years ago?

I would say the current situation is just the opposite. In the past the top teams bought the best national players and then would have top foreigners in the three or four allotted slots. And the differences were astronomical. Now, in the post-Bosman era, any club can sign wisely, they can draw from Romanians or Peruvians or Koreans if they can't find the similar talent in their own nations or else if they can't pay for it, signing such players with equivalent skills for less money. That is a great equalizer.

If you want to argue about continuity of winners, then explain why right now the only team clearly repeating last year's results in their league is Lyon? Why Germany or Spain are so tight this year, with four or even five teams in the mix for the title when last year it was not the case? Why the last two teams in the Champions League final are now out of the competition, not even in the last 8? Why last year's UEFA winner will likely be out of the competition by this time tomorrow (Sevilla has to win in the Ukraine or draw 3-3 or higher after the 2-2 at home)? All enough evidence of for me to suggest that there is no fact that corroborates this idea of any more "competitive imbalance" in Europe now than in the past.

[argh1]

So Jeffery I guess you're not in favour of revenue sharing, luxury taxes or payroll capping?

So when will Espanyol, Tottenham, Atalanta , Wolfsburg, St Etienne, or Utrecht be more than mid table clubs?

When will Club Brugge or Grasshoppers be CL champions? Or even semi-finalists?

When will ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Werder Breman, Bayren Munich, Stuttgart, Lyon, PSV, Ajax, AC Milan, would Inter be there if not for.. well, you know. How about Celtic, Rangers, and yes even Barca and Real Madrid. Not be in the top quarter?

Year after year these are the clubs that are vying for domestic league top honours and are almost assured of Euro spots.

Is it right that Barca and Chelsea have enough players that don't make the starting 11 to start a new top level team?

Is it right that Scandinavia, Low Countries, and most of Eastern Europe are net sellers and not buyers of players.

Yeah, sure occassionally a club comes outta no-where to challenge. But odds are they'll end up like Leeds or looks like what will happen to Sociedad. Because they over spent to challenge and failed.

And you see nothing wrong with continuing with the way things are?

So I guess the question is:

When will there be an even playing field? When will domestic leagues realize that competitive balance would be better for the league as whole not just the few elites of each domestic league?

Competition should generate more revenue to be distributed to the member clubs wouldn't it?

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

There is absolutely no evidence for this theory that there are fewer and fewer clubs able to compete in leagues and in European competitions. Not only that, even suggesting it betrays a huge failure in basic soccer history: when the European Cup was five years old how many clubs had won it? How competitive was it 45 years ago?

You’re in denial Jeffrey. The European Cup was a totally different format than the current Champions League. Comparing the 2 is like comparing today’s English league 1 with the 1960 English league 1 and concluding that football is more competitive today since the current league 1 (now the 3rd-tier of professional football in England) is more competitive than the old league 1 (and former top tier).

quote:

If you want to argue about continuity of winners, then explain why right now the only team clearly repeating last year's results in their league is Lyon? Why Germany or Spain are so tight this year, with four or even five teams in the mix for the title when last year it was not the case?

What’s going on in Germany and Spain this year is an anomaly. FACT: As the years go by, it requires more and more points to win the Premiership. FACT: It requires fewer and fewer points to survive relegation in the Premiership. FACT: This general trend (of a widening gap between the top and bottom clubs of the table), exists in Italy and Spain as well.

quote:

Why the last two teams in the Champions League final are now out of the competition, not even in the last 8? Why last year's UEFA winner will likely be out of the competition by this time tomorrow (Sevilla has to win in the Ukraine or draw 3-3 or higher after the 2-2 at home)? All enough evidence of for me to suggest that there is no fact that corroborates this idea of any more "competitive imbalance" in Europe now than in the past.

Well, that last statement doesn’t have anything to do with the rest of that paragraph. I doubt the UEFA Cup or CL will ever be predictable. But that's merely a consequence of the format of those competitions and says little or nothing about the competitive balance in Europe (or lack thereof).

The UEFA Cup is a consolation prize. It’s like saying the 6th place team in Spain is no more dominant today than 10 years ago, ergo we have parity. Well, we are not worried about the 6th place team becoming invincible. We are talking about the elite clubs becoming so dominant that the incentive to watch league football every weekend decreases.

And we all know that Chelsea is superior to Valencia, but of course Valencia can still beat them in CL since anything can happen on a given night. It’s just due to the format of the tournament more than anything else. Put them in a 38-game league and Valencia has no chance!

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by argh1

So Jeffery I guess you're not in favour of revenue sharing, luxury taxes or payroll capping?

So when will Espanyol, Tottenham, Atalanta , Wolfsburg, St Etienne, or Utrecht be more than mid table clubs?

When will Club Brugge or Grasshoppers be CL champions? Or even semi-finalists?

When will ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Werder Breman, Bayren Munich, Stuttgart, Lyon, PSV, Ajax, AC Milan, would Inter be there if not for.. well, you know. How about Celtic, Rangers, and yes even Barca and Real Madrid. Not be in the top quarter?

Year after year these are the clubs that are vying for domestic league top honours and are almost assured of Euro spots.

Is it right that Barca and Chelsea have enough players that don't make the starting 11 to start a new top level team?

Is it right that Scandinavia, Low Countries, and most of Eastern Europe are net sellers and not buyers of players.

Yeah, sure occassionally a club comes outta no-where to challenge. But odds are they'll end up like Leeds or looks like what will happen to Sociedad. Because they over spent to challenge and failed.

And you see nothing wrong with continuing with the way things are?

So I guess the question is:

When will there be an even playing field? When will domestic leagues realize that competitive balance would be better for the league as whole not just the few elites of each domestic league?

Competition should generate more revenue to be distributed to the member clubs wouldn't it?

I think if you really want an even playing field you should get 20 of your best friends together and play softball once a week, mixing the teams every time out. Never play the same 9 twice over the entire summer, unless by chance. Meet some nice gals from the office maybe, have a few beers after, a laugh. That is a level playing field, but as long as teams have competed factors which you are wrongly considering "unfair" have always existed.

Please be consistent and suggest that all international athletics results be adjusted statistically according to the GDP of the country the athlete represents. Let's build in a socio-economic handicap so that the guy from the Sudan coming in fourth in his quarter final heat in the 200 metre butterfly ends up on the podium with the gold medal. I am all for it, I am with you on it argh.

Why don't you be consistent: how about defending the right of all those second tier teams to be midtable, and lay into the mid-table teams, those that spend their 20 to 60 million euros a year like Espanyol, Tottenham, Atalanta , Wolfsburg, St Etienne, or Utrecht, so that the mid-tables are fairer? We want fairer midtables, it is not fair that the same teams always get into UEFA! And so on all the way down.

The argument, if applied logically, falls into a reductio ad absurdum (teams with budget to promote to 2nd division vs. those that don't, 5th tier teams in semi-pro with more money from a good local sponsor enabling them to promote while more modest sides can't), the argument applies everywhere, to everyone, and is thus meaningless. All you are saying is that clubs compete with everything in their power. What a revelation. You are not happy with the rules, with the same number of players, with the fact that grown men play against grown men, you somehow want the better ones, the more talented ones, to lose. And you can have your way, as long as you stick them with all the bad players on your softball team.

In any case Chelsea is not a team with a significant European tradition, while Partizan is, as well as Notts Forest. Go back, take a look at the last 50 years of European football, and you will see lots of changes in teams present, some do not even exist anymore. You are just being short-sighted, or, I suspect, are just pissed off that your ineffective mid-table table team that signs badly, has a crap coach, and a negative bunch of fans (like whiners like you) can't do any better in spite of having everything in your power to do so.

[Massive Attack]

I agree with Jeffrey on this. That being said, if I had to change anything, I'd make them share the TV revenue a little more fairly.

It's not like UEFA is unfair with how it runs the competitions though. The coefficient system is pretty fair. Romania has moved up from 25th to 7th in the span of 2 years.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2007.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2005.html

How did this happen? Romanian club teams started to perform well in UEFA competitions. So its not like its impossible for other nations to improve. They just have to start performing on the field.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

I agree with Jeffrey on this. That being said, if I had to change anything, I'd make them share the TV revenue a little more fairly.

It's not like UEFA is unfair with how it runs the competitions though. The coefficient system is pretty fair. Romania has moved up from 25th to 7th in the span of 2 years.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2007.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2005.html

How did this happen? Romanian club teams started to perform well in UEFA competitions. So its not like its impossible for other nations to improve. They just have to start performing on the field.

I am totally in favour of balancing out revenue. But the first and best balancer is called a transfer payment. I remember this under-17 playing for Europa, in Spanish fourth tier, a Barcelona team (and one of the founding clubs of the Spanish first division in 1929), a left wing called Borja. Very talented. Valencia paid something like 200,000 dollars for him, which was close to 50% budget of the club for an entire year. Get a few of those and you find yourself financially viable and able to sign better players at the level and make a run at promotion. But you have to have a youth system, good coaches, you have to have the dedication to developing younsters, and if you do a good job it will redress some imbalances.

Borja I think is in the Espanyol system now, Vicente stopped his progression at Valencia.

The great equalizer then is to run things well. Sounds easy but it is not. The most talented scout and signer in Spain in Monchi, the former keeper now head of sport for Sevilla. The guy is a genius, both with the youth teams and with signing from all over the world. Look what he has done to Kanoute, leading scorer in Europe. Transfering out the likes of Reyes, Ramos, Baptista, Dani Alves likely to go next year. Get an intelligent sport director and you can go from being a team in 2nd division (recently at that) to winning the UEFA and challenging for the league.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

I think if you really want an even playing field you should get 20 of your best friends together and play softball once a week, mixing the teams every time out. Never play the same 9 twice over the entire summer, unless by chance. Meet some nice gals from the office maybe, have a few beers after, a laugh. That is a level playing field, but as long as teams have competed factors which you are wrongly considering "unfair" have always existed.

Please be consistent and suggest that all international athletics results be adjusted statistically according to the GDP of the country the athlete represents. Let's build in a socio-economic handicap so that the guy from the Sudan coming in fourth in his quarter final heat in the 200 metre butterfly ends up on the podium with the gold medal. I am all for it, I am with you on it argh.

Why don't you be consistent: how about defending the right of all those second tier teams to be midtable, and lay into the mid-table teams, those that spend their 20 to 60 million euros a year like Espanyol, Tottenham, Atalanta , Wolfsburg, St Etienne, or Utrecht, so that the mid-tables are fairer? We want fairer midtables, it is not fair that the same teams always get into UEFA! And so on all the way down.

The argument, if applied logically, falls into a reductio ad absurdum (teams with budget to promote to 2nd division vs. those that don't, 5th tier teams in semi-pro with more money from a good local sponsor enabling them to promote while more modest sides can't), the argument applies everywhere, to everyone, and is thus meaningless. All you are saying is that clubs compete with everything in their power. What a revelation. You are not happy with the rules, with the same number of players, with the fact that grown men play against grown men, you somehow want the better ones, the more talented ones, to lose. And you can have your way, as long as you stick them with all the bad players on your softball team.

I think you're taking it too far. Some middle ground could be found. Afterall, its been done in other leagues (especially in North America).

Although UEFA does distribute money from European competitions pretty fairly, so I'm not sure why ARGH1 is barking up their tree.(?)

quote:

In any case Chelsea is not a team with a significant European tradition, while Partizan is, as well as Notts Forest.

Chelsea is a terrible example.

quote:

Go back, take a look at the last 50 years of European football, and you will see lots of changes in teams present, some do not even exist anymore.

Yes, but the game has changed in the last 10 years. TV money and gate reciepts has changed it. Now only rich clubs from rich countries can ever be great. That means Partizan, Ajax, Benfica, etc. will never have great teams again.

Not good.

[Massive Attack]

UEFA isn't totally fair in how they distribute money. For example. If PSV wins the CL, they would receive less prize money than if ManU won it.

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

I think you're taking it too far. Some middle ground could be found. Afterall, its been done in other leagues (especially in North America).

Although UEFA does distribute money from European competitions pretty fairly, so I'm not sure why ARGH1 is barking up their tree.(?)

Chelsea is a terrible example. ......

Okay,

I picked on UEFA because they are the governing body for Euro soccer. Domestic leagues I doubt will challenge their richest clubs to change anyting so a governing body will have too.

Because of every increasing monies from media the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. But will that last forever if all anyone wants to see is the top 3 to 5 elite clubs play each other?

So alright, say Tenerife make La Liga again. What will give them a chance of competing?

Why aren't broadcast deals split evenly amoungst member clubs instead of based on the number of times clubs are shown? After all these are league deals not club deals.

Clubs I'm sure should be allowed to make their own "in" market deals themselves. But "national" deals are for the good of the league not individual clubs.

Players Unions seem not to have the affect on leagues in Europe as the do on this side of the water so who is looking after the good of the player as far minimum salary, pension. life after soccer?

(okay different subject)

Back to the Tenerife example;

When Tenerife "wins" promotion to La Liga they should know that each team in La Liga will recieve exactly the same from "national" broadcast deals. They can of course earn extra by selling their own local broadcast rights themselves.

For the good of the league as a whole Tenerife should also know that each team can only have a payroll of X € and the minimum they can spend on payroll themselves is Y €.

Penalties in the form of fines payed to the league and then distributed to the league members for either going over or under the "cap"

If Tenerife can't live by this then decline promotion.

Also a revenue thresh hold should be set so say Barca have a revenue way over the average of the league that a percentage of that overage be paid back to the league to be distributed to clubs way below that average.

All I'm saying is give the middle to lower clubs who are invited into the domestic leagues a chance to compete. Knowing what they have to spend and what others can spend.

Yes, there will always be bad management and no, you can't fix stupid.

But give them a chance. That's all I'm saying.

If UEFA can't make domestic leagues create a more even playing field, than who can?

[Captain Spaulding]

The Economist has had some coverage of professional sports, citing the success of the NFL which is sees as based on its being a cartel, equalizing revenue and capping player salaries.

By comparison European soccer looks more like 19th century capitalism before the Standard Oil cartelization. Of course, being international, it lacks the cohesiveness of the NFL, and some governments probably aren't as sympathetic to open cartels. UEFA can't play the role of the NFL owners who really constitute a trade association, so there doesn't seem to be much restraint on the actions of individual owners.

Under those circumstances equalization is not likely to be as effective. I would look to MLB, or the NHL for the highest likely level of equalization in soccer.