European super league

[Healdplace]

why are people suggesting it suggest few English teams I suggest the opposite its all about getting teams in based on former glory ie United and Liverpool on top of the top four. Mind wont help Villa Everton Newcastle Leeds County or Forest

It was what was stated in The Sun today that the new format would likely mean a reduction from the four English qualifiers. Though I did not see them justify this.

 

[city saint]

it ll be 8 teams from every country going into a big knockout stage where teams in red will get braga midgetland etc and teams in blue will get Dortmund with teams in red qualifying for the big mini league

 

[WRicko]

It was what was stated in The Sun today that the new format would likely mean a reduction from the four English qualifiers. Though I did not see them justify this.

I thought the articles where suggesting the number of clubs would go up like they have for the world cup

Perhaps it will help Italy out more than United and Liverpool but then again they support it so must be getting something out of it

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I saw 5 or 6 English clubs in the mix to start with.

 

[Falastur]

I don't understand 2 leagues of 8 - there surely isn't time for 14 matches per side as there is now?

I'm pretty certain this is putting things up to see ho much they're hated, apart from Herbert's attempt to explain it using City's name a lot in the Indie.

Two leagues of 8 would mean 14 "league" games for each team. There are currently six rounds in the present group stage, the EL plays four games while the CL plays two before the quarters, then two games in the quarters and two in the semis makes 14 rounds. That leaves the date of the final, when the winners of the two leagues will play each other for the trophy.

The only question is fitting in the extra elimination round before, but I'm sure they could make it happen.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Two leagues of 8 would mean 14 "league" games for each team. There are currently six rounds in the present group stage, the EL plays four games while the CL plays two before the quarters, then two games in the quarters and two in the semis makes 14 rounds. That leaves the date of the final, when the winners of the two leagues will play each other for the trophy.

The only question is fitting in the extra elimination round before, but I'm sure they could make it happen.

So everyone gets more games? I can see that, although it seems strange.

It also seems curious to make it just the league winners playing each other. There will be quite a lot of dead games in a league of eight too. I don't see any interest in watching City play either Arsenal twice more or nearly anyone in the last few rounds when the league is down to 2-3 teams.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's classic American sport / TV exec thinking that their model is best and should be replicated everywhere else.

The thing is, their model isn't best. It might suit their country and their culture to have a closed shop where all of the biggest "brands" play each other. Works well on TV for the hundreds of millions of casual fans who have no particular affiliation to one team over another. They have a country of 300million people and 20 professional teams. It's big business, the league itself is more important than the individual teams.

In Europe it's a little different. We have a population of nearly a billion, and there are thousands of professional teams. Support is very much more localised and in the majority of cases passed down through generations of families for over a hundred years. If you tried to relocate Borussia Dortmund to London because it had a wealthier demographic, there would be wars on the streets!

America should come to Europe and learn from us, not the other way around! The Premier League is the richest, most watched sports league in the world, who the fuck are some NFL execs to tell us how to run our game? They should be asking us, and learning from us what is so successful.

The reason football is the most popular game on the world by far is because within reason, any team can beat any other team on a given day. That's what gives people hope. That's why you get millions of people turning up to watch lower league shite teams every week all over Europe. They go because they have hope that their team might eventually win. City being a prime example. When I was going to City away at Macclesfield I dreamed one day a miracle would happen and we could one day win the top flight again. I didn't think I'd be sat here 20 years later saying I've seen City do it twice, but it happened. Going through all that shite, having that hope, it was worth it.

If you strip away that hope, make it impossible for teams to get to the top and win, what's the point? That's not sport, it's sanitised corporate entertainment.

Even if they keep it as an open shop, with 2 leagues of 8 teams, yes you'd get guaranteed games between the "biggest brands", but there's a problem. The last 5 or 6 games for half the teams in the leagues would be dead rubbers. When it became clear that they couldn't get in to one of the top two positions, what's the point? Nothing to play for, why would anyone watch, or care about those games? The reason football is so exciting and popular is because it's so competitive, anyone can win. In TV they call it "jeopardy", it's what makes thinks dramatic and engaging.

If there is nothing riding on those last few games, nothing to play for, no "jeopardy" why would anyone watch? Just because it's AC Milan vs Arsenal, people will watch even if there's nothing riding on it? Don't bet on it! Teams would send out their youngsters and save them for league games.

The reason people are getting bored with the Champions League is that there are too many boring, meaningless games. This proposal is to keep the boring and meaningless part, but do it with more recognisable teams. It won't work.

The best way to reinvigorate the format is to make is more competitive, less dead rubbers, less mismatches. There should be a knockout competition until you get to a last 16. Seed it if you want, like they do now to protect the big clubs. Then have 4 groups of 4. The 16 best teams in Europe. No seeds, anything goes. The top two from each pot goes through to a quarter final, and then the format takes care of itself.

That way, you keep the competition open to all, everyone has a chance. You will get the shit teams playing the big teams early on, but it will be interesting to watch because anything could happen. There would no doubt be the odd upset. Then in the group stage, every single game would count. Every match would be interesting. You'd be guaranteed to get big clubs playing against each other, and more importantly, something would be riding on every game.

And in that format they could have one Champions League match on per night. At the moment there are two, this way you could do it with no clashes so every game is televised without a clash so the sponsors would be happy.

Fantastic and very well observed post there, mate. Some really good ideas too.

 

[Falastur]

So everyone gets more games? I can see that, although it seems strange.

It also seems curious to make it just the league winners playing each other. There will be quite a lot of dead games in a league of eight too. I don't see any interest in watching City play either Arsenal twice more or nearly anyone in the last few rounds when the league is down to 2-3 teams.

They never said specifically that it would only be the league winners against each other, but I'm interpolating. I can't see it working any other way, unless they have the two "top twos" and have a very quick semi-finals, but that would be one more round of fixtures right at a time when no-one wants extra games. It wouldn't even make sense to not have the two leagues compete against each other - you'd have to have two cups and that is nonsense.

The whole point of the league format is that the fewer teams left in, the fewer teams on TV. Additionally, by moving to a last-16 league format rather than the last-32 currently used, they filter out more lower-ranked teams - I saw one insidious quote, possibly from Real themselves (I can't remember), saying that the Real v BATE games in the group stage a few years ago "should not be allowed to happen again". While they are fairytale for the weaker side, the loss of a second team which is going to bring in the viewers means that ratings, and therefore revenue, goes down. The whole point is that they want this to be European Super League v0.5, a situation where only the top teams are involved, playing frequently and therefore driving up the TV revenues to far higher levels. That way the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, which is exactly what they want out of it all.

 

[Colin Bell's Boots]

A despicable organisation running a corrupt competition to make money for those already loaded.

How I despise the whole charade.

Totally agree - designed purely for the " greedy " f*ckers amongst the usual suspects , with the Rags, Dippers Real Madrid et al selling their arses to get a piece of it.

Perish the thought that the Champions League should be for winners of the league !

What about a new and more appropriately named competition - " Not good enough to be Champions - Cup " ?

 

[Walking on the blue moon]

They never said specifically that it would only be the league winners against each other, but I'm interpolating. I can't see it working any other way, unless they have the two "top twos" and have a very quick semi-finals, but that would be one more round of fixtures right at a time when no-one wants extra games. It wouldn't even make sense to not have the two leagues compete against each other - you'd have to have two cups and that is nonsense.

The whole point of the league format is that the fewer teams left in, the fewer teams on TV. Additionally, by moving to a last-16 league format rather than the last-32 currently used, they filter out more lower-ranked teams - I saw one insidious quote, possibly from Real themselves (I can't remember), saying that the Real v BATE games in the group stage a few years ago "should not be allowed to happen again". While they are fairytale for the weaker side, the loss of a second team which is going to bring in the viewers means that ratings, and therefore revenue, goes down. The whole point is that they want this to be European Super League v0.5, a situation where only the top teams are involved, playing frequently and therefore driving up the TV revenues to far higher levels. That way the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, which is exactly what they want out of it all.

Sad but true:(

Personally I don't mind seeing some of the so-called weaker teams as the current CL qualifications system is still based on merit. They earn their tickets to the top echelons of European football and wider exposure, so why not? But I agree that a Real v BATE match is much less attractive to many viewers than the Real v Bayern one. TV revenues is definitely a big consideration here.

However, at one point one has to ask, " Is allowing businessmen to dictate football development conducive?" The answer is obviously no. Something has to be done to stop the escalation of footballing world into an M-shaped society. But I just feel powerless and helpless that as fans we have little say in such issues, and that those in power probably won't fight for us.