And I politely put him right on a number of his claims.
His responses to you contradicted the premise of his article, he also posted a link to an article he wrote previously to defend himself. He always states football is broken but never states the period when it wasn't. If he'd bothered doing any research he'd know the predictability of the Champions League is the same as it was 30 years ago. It's only that a couple of new teams have taken the place of others.
Raising Rosenborg as an example was weird. As they contradict another article he posts a link to later, trying to defend his stance. In it he bemoans European leagues now being dominated by certain 'super' clubs, claiming it was never like this in the past (spoiler: it was, for all of them). Between 1992 and 2004 Rosenborg won the Norwegian title 13 times in a row. He bemoans Dundalk winning the League of Ireland title 5 times in the last six seasons, after the article, they haven't won it since.
Rosenborg beat Milan in 1996/97, that was the last time they reached the knock-out stage of the Champions League, which also happened to be the last season that only the champions of their leagues entered the competition. That isn't a coincidence.
He dances around the topic but never fully commits to holding certain clubs to account, the ones that demanded change from UEFA to get a bigger share of the money that started to come into the game. The clubs that would go to form the G14 (and expand it) and hold far too much power over European football.
The other laughable statement in the article was that Liverpool's domination in the 70s and 80s was organic and had nothing to do with money.
I haven't known a prominent journalist (outside of politics) to be so consistently wrong about their specialist topic.
