Depends how it’s structured. For example, two divisions ESL1 and ESL2. The teams currently qualifying for the Champs League from the big five leagues would be founder members of ESL1. The teams currently qualifying for the Europa League from the big 5 leagues plus the champions from several other European leagues would be founder members of ESL2. So qualification for membership of the founding leagues would be by sporting merit and there would be the opportunity for promotion from 2 to 1 based on merit. The broadcasting and commercial revenue generated by such a league would be immense and dwarf anything currently being made by clubs finishing second in their domestic league. Just an example plucked from thin air by a random poster on the internet, but I’m sure you get the concept.
The Super League | FA + PL: New Charter & Fines | UEFA: Settlement
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The Spanish clubs are not wholly fan-owned any more. All bar 4 (Barca, Real Madrid, Athletic Bilbao & Osasuna) are limited companies. We own 41% of Girona, with Pep's brother owning a similar amount. And two of those clubs were planning to be in it so they clearly didn't care about their fans.
And the 50+1 is a requirement of the DFL (German FA) which states that a team can't be in the Bundesliga without that. If Bayern or Dortmund decide they're going to join the ESL, they're not going to be in the Bundesliga and there's no 50+1 requirement imposed on them any more.
So fan ownership or 50+1 is a red herring.
Berts Neck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 1,735
This is how I see it. It would be no different to buying a house.
1. Buy it outright with cash. Maybe you had an inheritance,won the lottery etc. --The City scenario.
2. You buy it with a mortgage at three times your salary. All is fine as long as you dont lose your job.--probably how most PL teams now operate--losing your job makes payments hard. The lender may agree to a payment holiday or you can re-mortgage if you have enough equity. Covid has affected clubs in a similar was as losing your job,income reduced.
3.You buy it with a mortgage at 20x your earnings.You then start having to get the Mrs. working, do two jobs and hope your asset is appreciating so if the poo hits the fan you are quids in. Barcelona/Madrid.In their case,they got so far behind with mortgage payments, unless they remortgage,or sell, they are in big trouble. This is why they were desperate for the ESL, as they need the cash to pay for such a steep mortgage.
4. You buy it with your mates.You live there but dont own it. German model. All fine but, but if you want an extension or otherwise you all have to agree. Not always easy or practical.
I know this is simplistic, but for the life of me I can not understand why option 1. is not viewed by the powers that be as a good way of owning a club. I do have to say that option 4. is probably the next best option.
1. Buy it outright with cash. Maybe you had an inheritance,won the lottery etc. --The City scenario.
2. You buy it with a mortgage at three times your salary. All is fine as long as you dont lose your job.--probably how most PL teams now operate--losing your job makes payments hard. The lender may agree to a payment holiday or you can re-mortgage if you have enough equity. Covid has affected clubs in a similar was as losing your job,income reduced.
3.You buy it with a mortgage at 20x your earnings.You then start having to get the Mrs. working, do two jobs and hope your asset is appreciating so if the poo hits the fan you are quids in. Barcelona/Madrid.In their case,they got so far behind with mortgage payments, unless they remortgage,or sell, they are in big trouble. This is why they were desperate for the ESL, as they need the cash to pay for such a steep mortgage.
4. You buy it with your mates.You live there but dont own it. German model. All fine but, but if you want an extension or otherwise you all have to agree. Not always easy or practical.
I know this is simplistic, but for the life of me I can not understand why option 1. is not viewed by the powers that be as a good way of owning a club. I do have to say that option 4. is probably the next best option.
The 2 superclubs are. And Laporta and Perez have both said that while they're 100% in favour of the super league they can't proceed without the fans voting in favour.
50+1 is a requirement for DFL but it's also the state that Bayern, Dortmund are in. They can't leave the Bundesliga without voting on it. There is no one at those clubs with the power to remove them without a vote.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The 6 PL clubs would 100% have been expelled by the PL if they'd gone ahead with this. Highly likely any other club would have been expelled from their national league. So it's not a question of a vote to leave. They'd be out, full stop.
You're one of the most intelligent posters on here but it seems your grudge with me over Sterling is clouding your normally very reliable judgement. Fan ownership is a red herring and Perez clearly sees it as such.
This has nothing to do with Sterling, your posting on this topic makes no sense. Especially your last post "If Bayern and Dortmund decide they want to join" - this literally makes no sense. No one has the power to make that decision unilaterally without a member vote.
The chairman could announce such a move, and then sure as night follows day an extraordinary general meeting would be called and they'd have a referendum on leaving/joining by way of voting out the board.
Bayern, Dortmund, Barcelona and Madrid cannot join a super league without a vote of the members.
Joan Laporta and Floretino Perez have admitted this even as they say the clubs need to join a super league.
You can't have a super league without those 4 clubs. Definitely not a full time league-replacement.
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Americans view sport logically from a financial point of view. By and large, the largest cities have top tier franchises because they have a fan base that can generate economics. Smaller cities don't; ergo, they should be excluded from the top tier. There are exceptions (the Green Bay Packers of the NFL, e.g.), but very few. So we have minor league baseball and hockey, where smaller city teams are owned by individuals but have contracted affiliations with major league teams and serve as a "farm system" for younger players (like City's youth teams work, or how we send young players out on loan to smaller clubs for playing time). There are no loan deals in the States. Moreover there are no transfer fees -- although teams can "buy" players for cash that is usually rare, limited to small dollar amounts, and teams typically wait for contracts to expire and then good players go to the highest bidder on wage. Players switch clubs while still on contract far more frequently via trades.
The economics of having to agree with a player via wage AND a transfer fee with the selling club is absolutely a reason we have a financial pyramid in football that the US doesn't have in any sport. Economically this has never made sense to me.
That's also why American teams move from cities whose population, fan base or sport popularity is stagnating to those that are growing. Leagues should be closed so that ownership have business stability, and if a league grows by adding expansion teams, it would be because the demand for a new franchise will bring in greater revenues for all, since by and large revenues are equally shared (it varies sport to sport, and this is less true in baseball).
As cultural and social institutions, however -- the American understanding of European football and football generally is woefully lacking. There is little tribal about American sports. While teams may have rivalries, nowhere in America do we cordon off a set of stands for away fans with police. Rival fans sit side by side wearing team colo(u)rs and, sure, every once in a while it kicks off (remember -- we serve alcohol in the stands in America), but very, very infrequently.
More important, the roots of so many English football sides were people's clubs, working class or otherwise, begun as amateur gatherings that eventually became professional, whereas nearly all American sports teams began with the intent of being professional sports entertainers from the outset.
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
I apologize, and I know I sound absolutist -- but the only acceptable end concept for these owners is a closed league. The suggestion you plucked is fine, but it's just a gateway drug. Owners want the risk of not participating in league revenues to be 0%, which means a closed league. That's the ultimate aim -- the ONLY aim.
And when they invite Inter Miami to join them?
What we have now is pretty shit but that is because the history clubs are/were allowed to call the shots. Take away their power, stop the revamp of the Champs League and start giving Leicester, Everton West Ham, belief that they can compete, add Atalanta and others in Europe instead of gobshite history wankers trying to stop them and we will have far better football
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
But Perez signed a contract and is saying clubs that signed that contract cannot pull out now. Why did he sign a supposedly unbreakable contract if he needed his members to endorse that? How is he going to pull out if it's put to a vote and his members vote against it?
At worst, they'll do something like form a new club or holding company that isn't member owned. Members won't be allowed to get in the way of earning money and it's naïve to think they will.
To be honest what would be the problem with Inter Miami joining?
If we're designing a new international football competition, is there much difference having Inter Miami when we've got clubs from Asia it the tournament? I bet it would be easier and cheaper for away fans to go to Miami than some of the darkest corners of Easter Europe they currently travel to.
I suppose the problem is that you can't just have East coast teams, you'd have to open it up to the top x MLS teams and then travel would get stupid. And could you stop at the Americans?
Last edited:
Perez claimed the crowd outside Stamford Bridge was planted there by Javier Tebas live on Spanish TV as a way to hurt him (Perez) personally.
He has lost touch with reality, anyone who is using excerpts from his media appearances as fact needs to check themselves.
He's in the same situation as Laporta, who said very clearly, they aren't officially in until it's passed a vote by the members and he doesn't have the authority to put them in without a vote - and as Laporta is sane, and not peddling conspiracy theories - I'll take his word over Florentino's.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Yes. It's not much of a step from the ESL to FIFA's proposed Club World Cup. South American & African clubs particularly would leap at the sums involved.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Exactly why would a home club in a league like this make any tickets especially available for away fans? We don't do that in the States -- in any sport. You want a ticket to see your team play away, you hope there are some extras available in general admission or you go to Stub Hub and pay someone who can't use their season ticket for some reason (or pay a scalper outside the stadium day of).
All 20 Serie A clubs just passed a law that any club who joins a tournament not sanctioned by FIGC, UEFA and FIFA is expelled from Serie A.
Italian clubs can now be counted out of any CL replacement super league.
Federcalcio: escluso chi partecipa ad altri tornei. Voto unanime, sì di Marotta
Varata la norma anti Superlega, Gravina: "Chi continua a essere intransigente sarà sanzionato anche con l’esclusione dalle competizioni internazionali"www.gazzetta.it
And the 3 Italian rebel clubs voted for it too.
As the organisers want away fans for the atmosphere so it will be in the rules no doubt.
There are "away allocations" in boxing like Hatton got v Pretty Boy.
College (American) football does and is the American sport closest to football in Europe. Its is the formation of teams and leagues established in the late 19th century around organizations that have tethered fan support via institutional association. Although it does not have relegation/promotion, teams can move in and out of relevancy based upon the school administration. There is also factionalism that has led to numerous instances of reprehensible behavior - by institutions and fans alike. It isn’t the perfect parallel, but it is certainly similar.
College football has always been the most interesting sport in the US because its games always meant more as there was no playoff and at the end of the season the two teams ranked 1/2 in the polls played for the title. Recently much of that has changed with the introduction of a playoff and subsequent attempts to expand said playoff. The sport also generates more than $6 billion in revenue annually at the highest level.
And this happens all the time in American sports. That is why they are such shit
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
I don't know anything about boxing, but do you think owners want to maximize revenue with a good atmosphere or not maximize revenue with a great atmosphere?
For example, do you think a lot of away fans visit the home club's shop to buy stuff?
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
I think that's probably right. I dislike American football and college football specifically, but you're right about tethered fan support.
One parallel I used with my non-football-caring friends here is NCAA basketball in terms of what the football owners were trying to do -- take a merit-based championship based on local micro-league performance and restrict it to the "big" schools.
Imagine if Duke, North Carolina, Villanova, Michigan, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky, et al got together and said they automatically made into the NCAAs regardless of how they performed in the ACC or whatever, or the conference tournament. Actually, imagine if 48 (3/4 of 64) teams did it (pretend the play in games don't exist).
There would be fucking riots at college campuses all over the nation. Sports talk would go berserk. Knowing America, there would probably be shootings. It would never stand and every single American sports fan would talk of nothing else and wonder in amazement at the incredible stupidity of the universities for trying suck a thing.
Last edited: