DG_ThenNowForever

European Super League

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

12 of the initial 15 teams have been identified. I wonder about the remaining three, and how they're feeling about now.

Reportedly the other 3 invited are Bayern, Dortmund, and PSG. I think the 50+1 rule will ensure the German clubs stay out, but PSG will probably play the whole "well we don't like it but we can't be left behind" schtick and join a week from now. 

 

Maybe I'm reading the situation wrong, but I think the owners are practically begging the domestic leagues to ban them so they can make the ESL a full on league like every other and not "Champions League, but you don't have to qualify every year." They want this to be the NFL of soccer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, the admiral said:

it me, the tankie who thinks soccer needs more hedgies and oil sheikhs

 

As I said, I make no apologies for accepting the funding of my sports entertainment by evil people, as only those types are capable of doing it on the highest level. It's a compromise that I made long ago, and one that I am comfortable with.

 

(But I really don't think that I can be a proper "tankie" if I denounce Stalin.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a Defector subscription, there's this: https://defector.com/why-the-european-super-league-is-evil/

 

If you look at the list of clubs from EPL, Tottenham sticks out so badly. But after reading a Defector commenter, I didn't realize how bad:

 

Quote
Things that have happened since Spurs won the League:
 
Derby County win league.
Ipswich Town win league.
Derby County win league again.
Leeds, Notts Forest, Everton, Villa all win the league a bunch.
The Cuban Missile Crisis.
Moon Landing.
JFK assassinated.
Beatles release "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"
Sean Connery films his first Bond film.
 
Meanwhile, Leicester won the league 5 mins ago and are currently 3rd. :censored: everything about this.

 

Why is Tottenham here? Is it like a pre-2004 Boston Red Sox thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Why is Tottenham here?

 

Tottenham are there because they can afford to be there.  

 

And, while they've not won the league in a long time, they were a Champions League finalist only a couple of years ago.  More important, they are a competitor for the world's best players and managers.  (Mourinho is their current manager!)  That's why they belong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Why is Tottenham here? Is it like a pre-2004 Boston Red Sox thing?

I mean... they're one of the Big 6, they're located in London and (I would guess) one of the 10 most popular teams in the world. Do they deserve it, no (I would argue none of these teams do, but Spurs deserve it least), but it isn't a surprise that they're included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tottenham has money, a new stadium, is located in London, and is one of the favorites of Americans. This new league isn’t about history, it’s about earning potential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, and the one thing I actually like about soccer is getting brutally murdered. FIFA only hates this because their hands aren’t in this cookie jar, make no mistake about this but man, this whole thing is dumb.
 

Makes about as much sense as the NFL suddenly having promotion and relegation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sportsfan7 said:

 

Yikes!

 

I'd take him back at Chelsea in a second.  He should never have been sacked the second time.  Mourinho III !  It would be like a Euro-style version of the old George/Billy thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

So, yeah, this Super League would make the richest owners even richer.  I don't care.  What I care about is that this league will promote the highest level of competition, the competition amongst the biggest clubs, and also that these clubs will have to pay players a great deal of money in order to keep up with their gargantuan peers. This is unquestionably in fans' interest.  And I, being a fan, approve.

 


But they won’t promote the highest level of competition in the world.
 

You can’t say that with any validity when you’re including the likes of Arsenal (who haven’t sniffed a true chance at a deep CL run in more than a decade) and Spurs (who had one magical run, but have never even been PL Champions). Or teams like Juve, who’s been eliminated by Porto, Ajax and Lyon in CL in the last few years and surely haven’t shown the ability to actually earn their place among the elite clubs.

 

While simultaneously not including teams like Bayern (the best team in the world last season), BVB, or PSG or any of the other French teams, the Dutch giants, or the Portuguese teams who routinely beat most of the 12 founding members in CL. 
 

Furthermore, how does the Champions League not already provide and promote the highest level of competition in the footballing world?
 

It’s the most prestigious club competition on the planet. All footballers in the world dream of playing in Champions League and the World Cup. The unworthy teams can’t compete in it, and only the best from year to year can. So again, how is that not promoting the highest level of competition in the world? 
 

Only a few of the 12 founding members are worthy of inclusion based on their current merit and talent, whereas most of the other clubs are included based purely on their popularity and prestige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Yikes!

 

I'd take him back at Chelsea in a second.  He should never have been sacked the second time.  Mourinho III !  It would be like a Euro-style version of the old George/Billy thing.

Are there many marshmallow salesmen in London?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

As I said, I make no apologies for accepting the funding of my sports entertainment by evil people, as only those types are capable of doing it on the highest level. It's a compromise that I made long ago, and one that I am comfortable with.

 

(But I really don't think that I can be a proper "tankie" if I denounce Stalin.)

So you're perfectly fine with the next Donald Sterling or the next Marge Schott as long as they have the deepest pockets?

 

No thanks. I'd rather every team have community owners like Green Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

Only a few of the 12 founding members are worthy of inclusion based on their current merit and talent, whereas most of the other clubs are included based purely on their popularity and prestige.

 

And their wealth.  Don't forget their wealth.  This translates into these clubs being the desired destination for the top players in the world, and therefore this league being the league that people around the world will most want to watch. One of these Super League matches could potentially have a Super-Bowl-level viewership each week.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

Furthermore, how does the Champions League not already provide and promote the highest level of competition in the footballing world?

 

It does.  However, it is run by UEFA, rather than by the clubs.  In an earlier post I noted that the Premier League was formed in order to keep more of the revenue for the Premier League clubs, rather than having to distribute it amongst all the Football League clubs.  This is the same principle: the revenue that is generated by the new league consisting of these star-studded teams will go mainly to those teams.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

[The Champions League is] the most prestigious club competition on the planet. . . . The unworthy teams can’t compete in it...

 

Well, now you've overstated it.  Plenty of cheesy teams are in each year's Champions League group stage, which consists of 32 teams (and which UEFA plans to increase to 36).  And I don't even know how many teams participate in the qualifying rounds, but there sure are a whole lot of unworthy (to borrow your word) teams there.

Still, the knockout rounds are usually great, because they typically consist of the teams that people really want to see.  Now in the Super League we'll get those teams all the time.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

While simultaneously not including teams like Bayern (the best team in the world last season), BVB, or PSG or any of the other French teams, the Dutch giants, or the Portuguese teams who routinely beat most of the 12 founding members in CL.

 

The new Super League did not exclude Bayern or PSG or the Dutch and Portuguese teams; those teams excluded themselves.  I hope that those teams will enjoy winning the diminished Champions League, while the world watches the Super League and recognises that league's winner as the real European champion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

So you're perfectly fine with the next Donald Sterling or the next Marge Schott as long as they have the deepest pockets?

 

No thanks. I'd rather every team have community owners like Green Bay.

 

In the ideal world, I, too, would rather that that model be universal.  But please note that the Green Bay model cannot even be duplicated within the NFL, which has banned it.  In the real world, big-time sports requires tremendous wealth, which inevitably means the participation of unsavoury people.

The good news is that you don't have to pal around with these contemptible goons; you just have to accept that they are spending money in order to put out high-level sporting entertainment.  While they themselves are profiting monetarily, we as fans get a whole lot of benefit.

If this is not acceptable, then it is always possible for a fan to turn away from big-time sports entirely, as there is a very rich ecosystem of small sports leagues that a fan can get into.  But if you have a favourite team in Major League Baseball, the NFL (other than the Packers), or the NBA, then you're already complicit.  Best to embrace it, rather than pretend that there is some distinction between your team's owners and the owners of the clubs in this new Super League.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

And their wealth.  Don't forget their wealth.  This translates into these clubs being the desired destination for the top players in the world, and therefore this league being the league that people around the world will most want to watch. One of these Super League matches could potentially have a Super-Bowl-level viewership each week.

 


Lmao. Partially what makes the Super Bowl so special, is that it only happens once a year. That’s also what makes these amazing matches between the prestigious clubs so special because they are rare and uncommon. Chelsea was set to play Real Madrid for only the third time in their respective histories’ and for the first time since ‘98. That specialness of a match like this is devalued if you know you’re going to play them twice a year, every year. 
 

 

54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It does.  However, it is run by UEFA, rather than by the clubs.  In an earlier post I noted that the Premier League was formed in order to keep more of the revenue for the Premier League clubs, rather than having to distribute it amongst all the Football League clubs.  This is the same principle: the revenue that is generated by the new league consisting of these star-studded teams will go mainly to those teams.

 


Completely different than how the Premier League began because a.) they had the full support of the English FA, UEFA and FIFA and b.) it wasn’t exclusive and closed. Non-Premier League teams could be promoted to the league.
 

I have zero issue with teams wanting a bigger cut of the pie, taking some of that money away from UEFA and FIFA and gaining more ownership of the earned revenue they generate, but this is not the way to do it. You don’t do that by making essentially a rich boys only club. 

 

54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Well, now you've overstated it.  Plenty of cheesy teams are in each year's Champions League group stage, which consists of 32 teams (and which UEFA plans to increase to 36).  And I don't even know how many teams participate in the qualifying rounds, but there sure are a whole lot of unworthy (to borrow your word) teams there.

Still, the knockout rounds are usually great, because they typically consist of the teams that people really want to see.  Now in the Super League we'll get those teams all the time.

 

I have stated no inaccuracies. The Champions League is the most prestigious club competition in the world. That is a fact. It generates the highest viewership and the highest revenue of any football competition in the world, aside from the World Cup.

 

No unworthy teams compete in Champions League. They are the best in their domestic leagues, and deserve a chance at European glory no matter how unrealistic it is, they still have a chance. That is an elitist view, and one I do not share. 
 

As I stated above, those special matchups that we love to watch are special because we know the matches mean something and because they’re not common. We know that some of these teams won’t face other again for a long time. Seeing those teams play each other every year in a set, closed tournament devalues the matchup. 
 

 

54 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The new Super League did not exclude Bayern or PSG or the Dutch and Portuguese teams; those teams excluded themselves.  I hope that those teams will enjoy winning the diminished Champions League, while the world watches the Super League and recognises that league's winner as the real European champion.

 


What a pretentious statement.
 

It doesn’t matter that those teams excluded themselves, the fact that they are not participating for whatever reason they cited means the Super League cannot claim to be the highest level of competition in the world or the “real European champion” when better teams are not participating. 

 

Nobody will want to watch that league if their star players refuse to participate seeing as they’ll be banned from everything else. Players and coaches alike are already starting voice their disagreement and displeasure with this new competition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

If you have a Defector subscription, there's this: https://defector.com/why-the-european-super-league-is-evil/

 

If you look at the list of clubs from EPL, Tottenham sticks out so badly. But after reading a Defector commenter, I didn't realize how bad:

 

 

Why is Tottenham here? Is it like a pre-2004 Boston Red Sox thing?

The Leafs also won the Stanley Cup the last time Spurs won the league... heck Spurs have not won the FA Cup in 30 years... who else have won the FA Cup since then? Portsmouth and Wigan Athletic... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking that the Super League would probably create its own streaming service too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

Nobody will want to watch that league if their star players refuse to participate seeing as they’ll be banned from everything else.

 

You're right about that.  The whole rationale of having the world's top clubs grouped together goes out the window if the best players don't want to play for those clubs.

 

I figure that these clubs have thought about this, and that they are prepared to deal with it, both by making it clear how much more they will be able to pay players, and also by erecting an alternate tournament for national teams.  This imagined alternate tournament would have fewer teams than the "official" World Cup, which, like the Champions League, already has too many teams, and which, like the Champions League, is on the verge of expansion (in this case from 32 teams to an absurd 48 teams in time for the 2026 tournament in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico).

 

If the Super League clubs don't have a plan like this ready to go, then they have more money than brains, and deserve to fail.  But until they demonstrate othewise, I will assume that they know what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best case scenario as a West Ham fan:

-With no more obstacles West Ham cruises to their first league title

-Super League fails spectacularly in 2/3 years

- “big six” have economic sanctions, and have to start in a lower league, but are welcomed back

- In that time we become the top destination for talent, and a full on dynasty

- Set up for success for decades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want Champions League reform?

 

One team per league, the champion from the league before. No more, no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.