La Liga | 2025/26
- Thread starter Stato
- Start date
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 69,423
In the Jizzyjazz St Fishfinger derby too.
7 mins added on 1st half, 11 added on 2nd, and Var overturned refs decision to send off a Sevilla player.
kippaxwarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 23,403
- Location
- Jupiter Mining Corporation Red Dwarf
- Team supported
- City of course!!
Villarreal vs Barcelona league game to be played in Miami in December.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 32,893
- Team supported
- Manchester City
From ESPN
Barcelona’s latest financial report for the 2024–25 season reveals a total debt of €159.1m owed to other football clubs from previous transfer dealings. Out of this, €140.6m (£122m/$163m) must be paid within the next year, showing that the club’s financial burden remains heavy despite improved revenue.
Leeds top the list as they are still waiting for €41.9m (£36m/$48m) from Barca for the transfer of Raphinha in 2022. Bayern Munich are owed €20m (£17m/$23m) for Lewandowski, while Sevilla have €24.5m (£21m/$28m) pending for Jules Kounde, whom they acquired in 2022. The list goes further on with Manchester City yet to receive €13.3m (£11m/$15m) for Torres, and Real Betis are due €8m for Emerson Royal
Barcelona’s latest financial report for the 2024–25 season reveals a total debt of €159.1m owed to other football clubs from previous transfer dealings. Out of this, €140.6m (£122m/$163m) must be paid within the next year, showing that the club’s financial burden remains heavy despite improved revenue.
Leeds top the list as they are still waiting for €41.9m (£36m/$48m) from Barca for the transfer of Raphinha in 2022. Bayern Munich are owed €20m (£17m/$23m) for Lewandowski, while Sevilla have €24.5m (£21m/$28m) pending for Jules Kounde, whom they acquired in 2022. The list goes further on with Manchester City yet to receive €13.3m (£11m/$15m) for Torres, and Real Betis are due €8m for Emerson Royal
jimharri
Moderator
What's with the strange kick off time for the EL Classico game? Surely, that should be prime time Sunday evening?
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
A fine line between arrogance and petulance.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
From that range, I’d fancy either of us would have ‘come up with’ that winning goal, though I concede that his through ball was exquisite. Just how they manage to make players so egotistical and so instantly is still beyond me.
City Raider
Well-Known Member
When Vinicius was substituted on Sunday, cameras from broadcaster Dazn picked up the Brazilian saying: "Always me! I'm leaving the team! It's better if I leave, I'm leaving."
Balotelli needs to give the spoilt brat his t-shirt
Balotelli needs to give the spoilt brat his t-shirt
law74
Well-Known Member
Terrible to see the most arrogant player in the world falling out with the most arrogant club in the world.
Maybe Brexit Jim will take him to Trafford
Imagine having Vinicius, Bellingham and Rudiger in the same team. Crybaby FC.
Real Madrid to seek compensation over Super League https://share.google/WOMzDfH06GPRCuB4c
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 32,893
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Makes you wonder just how greedy football has become when you saturate your own market and have to expand forever, it's not good enough you've cornered your own market.
chris63
Well-Known Member
[td]
Real Madrid have announced their intention to pursue UEFA for “substantial damages” over the collapse of the European Super League, with reports indicating the claim may reach around €4.5bn.
The legal action has brought a story many believed had passed back into the centre of European football conversation. The damages they are seeking are for what they believe was lost revenue when UEFA acted to prevent the project from proceeding. Reports from AS and the Financial Times suggest the claim is based on projected matchday, broadcast, and commercial income the club expected to earn had the competition launched.
Proving those projected earnings will be complicated. The Super League ended before it started due to fan protests and political pressure that led almost all participating clubs to withdraw. And crucially, no broadcaster or major sponsor publicly committed to the project, while a clear financial model also never reached maturity.
Madrid’s argument will rely on demonstrating that the league would have generated returns substantially beyond those of the Champions League, and that UEFA’s response directly prevented that outcome. That’s a tough one to prove, in my opinion.
For context around why this is happening now. A Spanish commercial court ruled in 2024 that UEFA, La Liga and the Spanish FA acted illegally in blocking the Super League from being given space to launch. That judgment was upheld on appeal. Real Madrid’s damages claim follows directly from that ruling and was not exactly unexpected. It is a natural legal progression, even if the wider football industry has moved on.
Follow me for more updates on LinkedIn | Instagram | X
While all this has been going on, UEFA has evolved its competitions. The joint venture with the European Club Association, now under the UC3 framework, is set to manage the commercial rights of UEFA’s club competitions from 2027.
As we know, the group stage format has already been replaced by an expanded league phase. Most major clubs, including previous ESL holdouts, are now aligned with the UEFA-led direction. Although there are reports of Super League backers, A22 Sports Management, making more proposals to UEFA.
The cultural dimension is unavoidable. Even though Madrid’s claim is about the financial consequences of UEFA’s actions, it inevitably draws the conversation back to the emotional territory of 2021. That moment was defined by the belief that the Super League represented a break between clubs and supporters, not on sporting terms but on identity terms.
Fans felt excluded from the decision-making. They felt the foundational values of competition were being altered without them, and Madrid’s role in that moment is part of recent football memory, not distant history.
The club’s identity has long included a degree of dominance and institutional self-belief. The risk for them is that the lawsuit shifts attention from the current forward-facing narrative the club has built since 2021, and turns back toward negativity.
On the pitch and commercially, Real Madrid are strong: arguably the best stadium in world sport, operating as both football ground and entertainment space, Champions League and La Liga success in recent seasons, and continued global brand leadership. From a public image perspective, reintroducing the Super League story interrupts that momentum.
Let’s consider the alternative perspective: Real Madrid believes the current structure of European competition undervalues the contribution of the clubs that drive global fan interest and commercial demand. They see this legal action as defending their economic role.
From that viewpoint, the lawsuit is a long-term strategic move rather than a symbolic one. If they were to achieve a significant damages award, it could reshape negotiating power in future discussions around competition format and revenue distribution.
The potential outcomes create two very different narratives. A meaningful financial settlement would allow Madrid to present the action as justified and strategically sound, reframing the club as a defender of its rightful economic position. An unsuccessful claim risks reinforcing the memory of the Super League as a greedy miscalculation.
This is about business, but the reaction around it is cultural. Madrid can separate those two things if they handle the communication carefully, but they will know the margin for misunderstanding is narrow. What happens next depends less on the lawsuit itself and more on how the club chooses to speak about it.
Thanks for reading. If you hit the like button, you’ll be doing me a huge favour.
David Skilling
Advertising & Partnerships | PR Pitches/Tips | Premium Archive
Original Football is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thanks in advance.
[/td]The legal action has brought a story many believed had passed back into the centre of European football conversation. The damages they are seeking are for what they believe was lost revenue when UEFA acted to prevent the project from proceeding. Reports from AS and the Financial Times suggest the claim is based on projected matchday, broadcast, and commercial income the club expected to earn had the competition launched.
Proving those projected earnings will be complicated. The Super League ended before it started due to fan protests and political pressure that led almost all participating clubs to withdraw. And crucially, no broadcaster or major sponsor publicly committed to the project, while a clear financial model also never reached maturity.
Madrid’s argument will rely on demonstrating that the league would have generated returns substantially beyond those of the Champions League, and that UEFA’s response directly prevented that outcome. That’s a tough one to prove, in my opinion.
For context around why this is happening now. A Spanish commercial court ruled in 2024 that UEFA, La Liga and the Spanish FA acted illegally in blocking the Super League from being given space to launch. That judgment was upheld on appeal. Real Madrid’s damages claim follows directly from that ruling and was not exactly unexpected. It is a natural legal progression, even if the wider football industry has moved on.
Follow me for more updates on LinkedIn | Instagram | X
While all this has been going on, UEFA has evolved its competitions. The joint venture with the European Club Association, now under the UC3 framework, is set to manage the commercial rights of UEFA’s club competitions from 2027.
As we know, the group stage format has already been replaced by an expanded league phase. Most major clubs, including previous ESL holdouts, are now aligned with the UEFA-led direction. Although there are reports of Super League backers, A22 Sports Management, making more proposals to UEFA.
The cultural dimension is unavoidable. Even though Madrid’s claim is about the financial consequences of UEFA’s actions, it inevitably draws the conversation back to the emotional territory of 2021. That moment was defined by the belief that the Super League represented a break between clubs and supporters, not on sporting terms but on identity terms.
Fans felt excluded from the decision-making. They felt the foundational values of competition were being altered without them, and Madrid’s role in that moment is part of recent football memory, not distant history.
The club’s identity has long included a degree of dominance and institutional self-belief. The risk for them is that the lawsuit shifts attention from the current forward-facing narrative the club has built since 2021, and turns back toward negativity.
On the pitch and commercially, Real Madrid are strong: arguably the best stadium in world sport, operating as both football ground and entertainment space, Champions League and La Liga success in recent seasons, and continued global brand leadership. From a public image perspective, reintroducing the Super League story interrupts that momentum.
Let’s consider the alternative perspective: Real Madrid believes the current structure of European competition undervalues the contribution of the clubs that drive global fan interest and commercial demand. They see this legal action as defending their economic role.
From that viewpoint, the lawsuit is a long-term strategic move rather than a symbolic one. If they were to achieve a significant damages award, it could reshape negotiating power in future discussions around competition format and revenue distribution.
The potential outcomes create two very different narratives. A meaningful financial settlement would allow Madrid to present the action as justified and strategically sound, reframing the club as a defender of its rightful economic position. An unsuccessful claim risks reinforcing the memory of the Super League as a greedy miscalculation.
This is about business, but the reaction around it is cultural. Madrid can separate those two things if they handle the communication carefully, but they will know the margin for misunderstanding is narrow. What happens next depends less on the lawsuit itself and more on how the club chooses to speak about it.
Thanks for reading. If you hit the like button, you’ll be doing me a huge favour.
David Skilling
[td]
[/td]
Original Football is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thanks in advance.
Like
Comment© 2025 Original Football
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 32,893
- Team supported
- Manchester City
[td]
Real Madrid have announced their intention to pursue UEFA for “substantial damages” over the collapse of the European Super League, with reports indicating the claim may reach around €4.5bn.
The legal action has brought a story many believed had passed back into the centre of European football conversation. The damages they are seeking are for what they believe was lost revenue when UEFA acted to prevent the project from proceeding. Reports from AS and the Financial Times suggest the claim is based on projected matchday, broadcast, and commercial income the club expected to earn had the competition launched.
Proving those projected earnings will be complicated. The Super League ended before it started due to fan protests and political pressure that led almost all participating clubs to withdraw. And crucially, no broadcaster or major sponsor publicly committed to the project, while a clear financial model also never reached maturity.
Madrid’s argument will rely on demonstrating that the league would have generated returns substantially beyond those of the Champions League, and that UEFA’s response directly prevented that outcome. That’s a tough one to prove, in my opinion.
For context around why this is happening now. A Spanish commercial court ruled in 2024 that UEFA, La Liga and the Spanish FA acted illegally in blocking the Super League from being given space to launch. That judgment was upheld on appeal. Real Madrid’s damages claim follows directly from that ruling and was not exactly unexpected. It is a natural legal progression, even if the wider football industry has moved on.
While all this has been going on, UEFA has evolved its competitions. The joint venture with the European Club Association, now under the UC3 framework, is set to manage the commercial rights of UEFA’s club competitions from 2027.
As we know, the group stage format has already been replaced by an expanded league phase. Most major clubs, including previous ESL holdouts, are now aligned with the UEFA-led direction. Although there are reports of Super League backers, A22 Sports Management, making more proposals to UEFA.
The cultural dimension is unavoidable. Even though Madrid’s claim is about the financial consequences of UEFA’s actions, it inevitably draws the conversation back to the emotional territory of 2021. That moment was defined by the belief that the Super League represented a break between clubs and supporters, not on sporting terms but on identity terms.
Fans felt excluded from the decision-making. They felt the foundational values of competition were being altered without them, and Madrid’s role in that moment is part of recent football memory, not distant history.
The club’s identity has long included a degree of dominance and institutional self-belief. The risk for them is that the lawsuit shifts attention from the current forward-facing narrative the club has built since 2021, and turns back toward negativity.
On the pitch and commercially, Real Madrid are strong: arguably the best stadium in world sport, operating as both football ground and entertainment space, Champions League and La Liga success in recent seasons, and continued global brand leadership. From a public image perspective, reintroducing the Super League story interrupts that momentum.
Let’s consider the alternative perspective: Real Madrid believes the current structure of European competition undervalues the contribution of the clubs that drive global fan interest and commercial demand. They see this legal action as defending their economic role.
From that viewpoint, the lawsuit is a long-term strategic move rather than a symbolic one. If they were to achieve a significant damages award, it could reshape negotiating power in future discussions around competition format and revenue distribution.
The potential outcomes create two very different narratives. A meaningful financial settlement would allow Madrid to present the action as justified and strategically sound, reframing the club as a defender of its rightful economic position. An unsuccessful claim risks reinforcing the memory of the Super League as a greedy miscalculation.
This is about business, but the reaction around it is cultural. Madrid can separate those two things if they handle the communication carefully, but they will know the margin for misunderstanding is narrow. What happens next depends less on the lawsuit itself and more on how the club chooses to speak about it.
Thanks for reading. If you hit the like button, you’ll be doing me a huge favour.
David Skilling
[td]
[/td]
Advertising & Partnerships | PR Pitches/Tips | Premium Archive
Original Football is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thanks in advance.[td] [/td]
[td]
Restack
[/td]
[/td]
[/td]
[td] [/td]
© 2025 Original Football
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe
[/td]
4.5 Billion?
Are the Madristas really just scousers in disguise.