That money has changed largely due to the changes in the CL format. Its fucked the domestic leagues as well.I agree that having more clubs from the big leagues makes it harder for those outside.
The bigger difference is that those big leagues, and the top clubs within them have pulled away financially, so the better players at any smaller clubs will be transferred quickly (Obviously part of this is due to the changes you talk about) - but it's the level of money involved that's changed.
Even at the end of the 90s, Arsenal's revenue was less than £50m a year, and that was when the money rush was already well underway. Plenty of rich people had the finances up until that point to make an impact Europe wide with their club. Now, you need to be a multi-billionaire, and with FFP that's still incredibly difficult.
I'd say partly, rather than largely - although I definitely agree that the CL has fucked competition within the individual leagues.That money has changed largely due to the changes in the CL format. Its fucked the domestic leagues as well.
As I said largely, it's only the shock growth of the Premier league that breaks the trend - any other league in Europe is dominated by consistent CL qualifiers in a manner that's self perpetual.I'd say partly, rather than largely - although I definitely agree that the CL has fucked competition within the individual leagues.
The TV money for domestic league, and particularly the PL is equally as big a driver of wealth disparities. The growth in PL worldwide rights is the most recent shock to European football, and we'll soon have even the big clubs in Europe unable to compete.
And of course all of this feeds in to the top clubs being much more prominent worldwide, which means more opportunity for commercial sponsorship, and the gap grows bigger.
Because they're part of a bigger ecosystem with clubs like Bayern, Real, Barca that do get CL money every single season and have done since the rule changes. It's not a PL problem but a UEFA one.You might argue that the people who run the English game want English teams to do well in the CL. If that means the domestic league is not competitive, they can live with that.
They just want Liverpool, Rags, Arsenal and (at a pinch) Chelsea to be the ones getting top 4 each year, just as they did in the old days. It's funny, but in those days I don't recall anyone suggesting the PL was dead, although in effect it was.
They don't really want a competitive league with a different top four each season. (Say Burnley, Leeds, Fulham and Bournemouth). Because they are well aware that if it worked that way the teams qualifying would not be good enough to win the CL. In such a league, no one would be able to afford to build an adequate squad.
Is that 8 of the last 10 seasons that the winner qualified as runners up or below. Farcical, but it's about revenue.Don't agree with your first paragraph tbh. Harder to qualify for yes, but not harder to win once qualified.
15 in 23 seasons.
Chronologically;
Rags 98/99
Madrid 99/00
Milan 02/03
Dippers 04/05
Milan 06/07
Barca 08/09
Chelsea 11/12
Bayern 12/13
Madrid 13/14
Barca 14/15
Madrid 15/16
Madrid 16/17
Dippers 18/19
Chelsea 20/21
Madrid 21/22
If anything the changes to qualification have made it far harder for the league champions to win it and made it next to impossible for anyone outside of England, Germany, Italy and Spain (only Porto in 23 seasons as a winner and no losing finalists either, the 23 years prior to the changes saw 6 winners and 8 losing finalists from outside those 4 countries).
When Malmo contested the 1979 final they had some part-time players on the pitch. Context.When Liverpool won it in the late 70's and 80s they played about 9 matches per tournament.
And while the gap in quality between Europe's top leagues wasn't as wide as it now is,Liverpool had to overcome Aberdeen,cska Sofia,Bruges and various others to win their European titles back then,as well as some of the big name sides.
It's much,much harder to win nowadays.
Unless a wealthy backer appeared.You might argue that the people who run the English game want English teams to do well in the CL. If that means the domestic league is not competitive, they can live with that.
They just want Liverpool, Rags, Arsenal and (at a pinch) Chelsea to be the ones getting top 4 each year, just as they did in the old days. It's funny, but in those days I don't recall anyone suggesting the PL was dead, although in effect it was.
They don't really want a competitive league with a different top four each season. (Say Burnley, Leeds, Fulham and Bournemouth). Because they are well aware that if it worked that way the teams qualifying would not be good enough to win the CL. In such a league, no one would be able to afford to build an adequate squad.
Yes he did although it was allegedly a laundry basketDidn't Mourinho once get banned from the stadium itself by UEFA, yet Chelsea smuggled him in in a wheelie bin?!
It is a bit ridiculous. Klopp has already said he found it useful to see his team from a different angle, and Sam Allardyce used to do this voluntarily in the first half of games, to help with his main tactical tweaks at half time.This isn't a Klopp-specific thing, but I noticed that during the game against Villa, he had an earpiece with microphone in, presumably to communicate with the bench. Is it just me, or if a manager is banned, surely they shouldn't still be allowed to communicate with the team. Given that the main thing they do on the day is make tactical decisions, how is it a ban if they're still able to do that?