Support NeoGAF

[StreetsofBeige]

and even considering that true (tricked down economy has pretty much always been bs) what would be the advantage in that?
what do you need money for ?
you need money to buy players, and need players to win matches and with them hope to win titles, cups or access more prestigious competitions
if winning matches doesn't matter anymore because sport merit is gone, what do you do with the additional money exactly?

and pleae don't tell me that those 5 "invite based" slots make any difference..since technically you could arrrive 5th in the entire superleague and still get kicked out because the 15 below are life-long members

I would be all over the SL as an alternative to a bloated champions league if it was entirely sport merit based...but as it is it's just garbage..12 bullies trying to steal the ball pretending it's their just because they are bigger .

From what I remember, the super league stance is that the big increase in revenue will help trickle down economics the best, as well as (self serving) it helps the super teams with big money.

I dont follow soccer so I only go with what I hear, but many of those big name teams have tons of debt. So assuming the big money is true, their PR is it helps trickle down divisions, but also (no PR) it helps them pay off debt.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

i keep hearing abot these supposed advantages the system bring, but no one has been able so far to tell me what these advantages actually are...talking about teams outside of those 12/15 that would crown themselves kings of football from now till the end of time.

a system that makes 15 teams thrive an destroys football for the rest of europe it's plenty bad.

It encourages more competitive games because there's more parity between teams and it gives organizations a modicum of financial stability for two off the top of my head.

 

[Majukun]

It encourages more competitive games because there's more parity between teams and it gives organizations a modicum of financial stability for two off the top of my head.

again, all advantages for 12 teams over hundreds

 

[Great Hair]

Drama will continue, Barcelona won't back off:

Laporta did not "sign up" for this, it was Bartolomeu. Around may 2021 they will hold a meeting, then it will decided should they join or not (the club-owners are the members, they have the final answer).

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

It’s funny the founder of Spotify put the family subscription price up and then made his announcement that he’d like to buy the gooners.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

It’s funny the founder of Spotify put the family subscription price up and then made his announcement that he’d like to buy the gooners.

If anything they should bring back Arsene Wenger.

 

[DKehoe]

If anything they should bring back Arsene Wenger.

Apparently Henry, Vieira and Bergkamp are all involved.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Apparently Henry, Vieira and Bergkamp are all involved.

Kinda jealous. We're still stuck with the Glazers.

 

[DKehoe]

Kinda jealous. We're still stuck with the Glazers.

Unfortunately the number talked about to buy Arsenal (£2bn) is half of what's being talked about for United (£4bn). So someone buying it as some kind of passion project becomes a lot less likely. That's why the depressing reality is some sovereign wealth fund would be the most likely buyer.

Sad state of affairs all because of a horse.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Unfortunately the number talked about to buy Arsenal (£2bn) is half of what's being talked about for United (£4bn). So someone buying it as some kind of passion project becomes a lot less likely. That's why the depressing reality is some sovereign wealth fund would be the most likely buyer.

Sad state of affairs all because of a horse.

Yeah, Glazers literally got Man United for free with their nasty loophole used by Ed Woodward back in the day and went from zero debts to 600M!

 

[Dural]

i keep hearing abot these supposed advantages the system bring, but no one has been able so far to tell me what these advantages actually are...talking about teams outside of those 12/15 that would crown themselves kings of football from now till the end of time.

a system that makes 15 teams thrive an destroys football for the rest of europe it's plenty bad.

A closed league at the top with a small number of teams, say 24, would have the highest concentration of the best athletes all competing with each other. If the league also had a salary cap you would also have parity across all the teams as they have a spending limit.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

again, all advantages for 12 teams over hundreds

Not really, I know that games in my local team's minor league are going to be competitive because there's not some team in the league that just got bought by a billionaire who's spending his way through the lower leagues and there's not another team that's freefalling down through the leagues because they got themselves in a risky financial position, missed a performance target, and are going bankrupt.

And financial stability is an advantage for lower level teams too. Take the Iowa Cubs, a high level minor league (AAA) team in the American baseball pyramid just under the top league (MLB) based in Des Moines, Iowa. That market can not, in any way, shape, or form support the salaries of the players that would need to be competitive at the top level. The stability affords them the ability to forecast their revenue and give players sustainable contracts and build facilities (stadium/training facilities/etc...) that fit their stature.

There can be other rewards for winning a league than just playing in the next level up.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Not really, I know that games in my local team's minor league are going to be competitive because there's not some team in the league that just got bought by a billionaire who's spending his way through the lower leagues and there's not another team that's freefalling down through the leagues because they got themselves in a risky financial position, missed a performance target, and are going bankrupt.

And financial stability is an advantage for lower level teams too. Take the Iowa Cubs, a high level minor league (AAA) team in the American baseball pyramid just under the top league (MLB) based in Des Moines, Iowa. That market can not, in any way, shape, or form support the salaries of the players that would need to be competitive at the top level. The stability affords them the ability to forecast their revenue and give players sustainable contracts and build facilities (stadium/training facilities/etc...) that fit their stature.

There can be other rewards for winning a league than just playing in the next level up.

I dont follow soccer, but even casual fans like myself know the Premier League seems to skew to a handful of teams that have a chance at winning. And it seems with all these crazy salaries and transfer costs there's no salary cap.

When you get no salary cap, you get Major League Baseball which leans heavy to the big market teams. Ya, you get a Kansas City or Florida Marlins every once in a while, and TB somehow seems to do decent every year but it's still a big market skew. Teams with a $50-100M payroll are up against a brick wall when the big teams spend $200M for sluggers and ace pitchers.

But what gives smaller teams a chance in baseball is there's many divisions and playoffs, so a small market team like Oakland in a west division can still win the division and make a playoffs run, since some divisions have more big market teams than others.

Out of the 4 main sports in US/Can, baseball is the one with the biggest chance of a high payroll team can actually do bad too. So even highly paid rosters dont guarantee a good record. Football, basketball and hockey seem more likely that a good payroll = decent success. Baseball, you get a high payroll and they cant even make the playoffs.

In EPL, it's one giant chart and zero playoffs. By the time the 10th game is played, you can probably already tell who has a chance and who doesnt.

And in EPL, how probable is it that one of the big market teams actually does really bad? In baseball it can still happen. Does it happen in soccer?

 

[cormack12]

Two WSL fixtures coming up tonight and tomorrow

REAL v CHELSEA
PSG v MAN CITY

 

[DKehoe]

I dont follow soccer, but even casual fans like myself know the Premier League seems to skew to a handful of teams that have a chance at winning. And it seems with all these crazy salaries and transfer costs there's no salary cap.

When you get no salary cap, you get Major League Baseball which leans heavy to the big market teams. Ya, you get a Kansas City or Florida Marlins every once in a while, and TB somehow seems to do decent every year but it's still a big market skew. Teams with a $50-100M payroll are up against a brick wall when the big teams spend $200M for sluggers and ace pitchers.

But what gives smaller teams a chance in baseball is there's many divisions and playoffs, so a small market team like Oakland in a west division can still win the division and make a playoffs run, since some divisions have more big market teams than others.

Out of the 4 main sports in US/Can, baseball is the one with the biggest chance of a high payroll team can actually do bad too. So even highly paid rosters dont guarantee a good record. Football, basketball and hockey seem more likely that a good payroll = decent success. Baseball, you get a high payroll and they cant even make the playoffs.

In EPL, it's one giant chart and zero playoffs. By the time the 10th game is played, you can probably already tell who has a chance and who doesnt.

And in EPL, how probable is it that one of the big market teams actually does really bad? In baseball it can still happen. Does it happen in soccer?

Liverpool, who are last year's champions, are currently 6th. Tottenham and Arsenal, both of which were due to join the super league, are 7th and 10th respectively, which isn't good enough to qualify either for the second tier European cup competition never mind the first.

If you look at the bigger picture, who the big teams are has shifted over time. If you would have done the Super League in the 90s you could have included Blackburn and Newcastle among the top 6 English teams. Now Blackburn are in the division below the premier league and Newcastle have spent the last few seasons fighting relegation. Leeds made it to a Champions League semi-final in 2001 before crashing out of the premier league not long after, dropping down to the 3rd tier of English football and have only just recently worked their way back up to the Premier League. Conversely Manchester City have gone from the 3rd tier to winning the Premier League multiple times in recent years.

There are some that have consistently been around the top but Liverpool didn't win a title for 30 years and Manchester United haven't looked like genuine title contenders in years and have frequently struggled to secure a Champions League spot. Admittedly it would take a lot for one of those teams to actually fail to the point of being relegated but it's not entirely impossible. In 2015 Chelsea started the season as champions but at one point were just a single point above the relegation zone. Probably the main issues fans have with the Super League is it takes the unlikely and makes it impossible. A small team isn't going to come out of nowhere to win it and teams are being classified as too big to fail. That's the way the owners of the big clubs want it because it guarantees their income. But when you take away that sense of "anything can happen" you reduce the appeal of any sport.

Two WSL fixtures coming up tonight and tomorrow

REAL v CHELSEA
PSG v MAN CITY

PSG had actually declined an invitation to join the super league.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

If anything they should bring back Arsene Wenger.

Arsene what did you think about the handball claim?

I did not see it.

Substitute ‘handball’ for every other football metaphor and that’s what I remember most about the Wenger.

 

[DKehoe]

Arsene what did you think about the handball claim?

I did not see it.

Substitute ‘handball’ for every other football metaphor and that’s what I remember most about the Wenger.

I can see the AFTV clips already:

"It's time to return!"

 

[Dural]

I dont follow soccer, but even casual fans like myself know the Premier League seems to skew to a handful of teams that have a chance at winning. And it seems with all these crazy salaries and transfer costs there's no salary cap.

When you get no salary cap, you get Major League Baseball which leans heavy to the big market teams. Ya, you get a Kansas City or Florida Marlins every once in a while, and TB somehow seems to do decent every year but it's still a big market skew. Teams with a $50-100M payroll are up against a brick wall when the big teams spend $200M for sluggers and ace pitchers.

But what gives smaller teams a chance in baseball is there's many divisions and playoffs, so a small market team like Oakland in a west division can still win the division and make a playoffs run, since some divisions have more big market teams than others.

Out of the 4 main sports in US/Can, baseball is the one with the biggest chance of a high payroll team can actually do bad too. So even highly paid rosters dont guarantee a good record. Football, basketball and hockey seem more likely that a good payroll = decent success. Baseball, you get a high payroll and they cant even make the playoffs.

In EPL, it's one giant chart and zero playoffs. By the time the 10th game is played, you can probably already tell who has a chance and who doesnt.

And in EPL, how probable is it that one of the big market teams actually does really bad? In baseball it can still happen. Does it happen in soccer?

This is pretty much how I see it. I've tried getting into European Football but there's just so many teams and leagues and championships it's just confusing. I also don't understand why you would want so many different teams and leagues, you'd never truly know who the best is.

One thing though, NHL and NFL both have hard salary caps so you're not going to have different payrolls. Everyone has the same payroll, some are just better at scouting talent and managing payroll than others. The NBA, otoh, I'm done with. Lebron and the other superstars ruined it.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

This is pretty much how I see it. I've tried getting into European Football but there's just so many teams and leagues and championships it's just confusing. I also don't understand why you would want so many different teams and leagues, you'd never truly know who the best is.

One thing though, NHL and NFL both have hard salary caps so you're not going to have different payrolls. Everyone has the same payroll, some are just better at scouting talent and managing payroll than others. The NBA, otoh, I'm done with. Lebron and the other superstars ruined it.

It's not that difficult... each country has a league with developmental leagues under it that all trade a couple of teams between the levels each year. The Cincinnati Reds go down to AAA and the Iowa Cubs come up to MLB. Then each country also has a "cup" competition, which is like a playoff, but it includes all the teams and runs side-by-side with the league.

That all makes sense, right? Not too different from the American style. There's so many teams because the whole system is connected and there's theoretically a path for your Wednesday night local church and bar league team to get to the top league. So when you hear someone wax poetically about "Chelmsford City," just think of "Stick 'n Balls Softball" from your rec league.

So then to find out who the best truly is, they use the results from all those leagues and cups to determine who plays in the Champions League the next season

The difficulty really comes in how they name the leagues, the English "Championship" is actually the 2nd tier and League 1 and League 2 are the 3rd and 4th leagues in the English pyramid respectively.

 

[Dural]

It's not that difficult... each country has a league with developmental leagues under it that all trade a couple of teams between the levels each year. The Cincinnati Reds go down to AAA and the Iowa Cubs come up to MLB. Then each country also has a "cup" competition, which is like a playoff, but it includes all the teams and runs side-by-side with the league.

That all makes sense, right? Not too different from the American style. There's so many teams because the whole system is connected and there's theoretically a path for your Wednesday night local church and bar league team to get to the top league. So when you hear someone wax poetically about "Chelmsford City," just think of "Stick 'n Balls Softball" from your rec league.

So then to find out who the best truly is, they use the results from all those leagues and cups to determine who plays in the Champions League the next season

The difficulty really comes in how they name the leagues, the English "Championship" is actually the 2nd tier and League 1 and League 2 are the 3rd and 4th leagues in the English pyramid respectively.

In the NFL and MLB year to year teams aren't going to be the same, if you're taking the top teams from the previous year are they really going to be the top team that year?

One other thing, is there a salary cap?

 

[RedWhiteBlue]

This is pretty much how I see it. I've tried getting into European Football but there's just so many teams and leagues and championships it's just confusing. I also don't understand why you would want so many different teams and leagues, you'd never truly know who the best is.

One thing though, NHL and NFL both have hard salary caps so you're not going to have different payrolls. Everyone has the same payroll, some are just better at scouting talent and managing payroll than others. The NBA, otoh, I'm done with. Lebron and the other superstars ruined it.

So just pick one that you like and go with it? Have you taken vacations to Europe? Maybe you have family ties to a particular place or something?

There's so many leagues and championships because there are so many local communities who have teams and who support their teams.
Do you have "Sunderland 'til I Die" documentary on US Netflix? It gives a small sense of the community relationships to these clubs.

Or maybe:


The point is that this "Super League" only represented 3 nations and Madrid, Manchester, Milan all had 2 teams each with London having 3.

Is this really a sensible question? "Why would Germany, Portugal, France, Scotland, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Greece, Poland etc want to have their own teams?"

So many diverse cultures and communities across Europe why shouldn't they all have some opportunity to be represented. Prague, Athens, Rotterdam, Moscow, Warsaw, Vienna, Bruges, Marseille, Glasgow, Copenhagen, Lisbon, Gothenburg, Dortmund, Istanbul. They all have their own identity and their own style and the clubs from these cities represent their communities.

"Why would you want so many different teams and leagues?"

Is it a joke question?

 

[RedWhiteBlue]

And in EPL, how probable is it that one of the big market teams actually does really bad? In baseball it can still happen. Does it happen in soccer?

Liverpool won their first title in 30 years last season. Sitting in 6th place now.
Manchester United haven't been champions of England since 2013. Haven't been champions of Europe since 2008.
Arsenal are 10th in the Premier League and haven't been champions since 2004. Have Never been Champions of Europe.
Chelsea last won the premiership in 2017 so that's not bad. They've won the Champions League once, in 2012.
Manchester City are a bit of a strange case as they have risen as a modern power in English football only since the early 2000s. Never been champions of Europe.
Spurs are the worst of all. They've been champions of England twice. The last was in 1961. They have never been champions of Europe.

That's just the 6 English clubs.

From the others I know for a fact Milan and Inter haven't won a Serie A title between them in the past 9 years but Inter might be changing that.
Last time an Italian team won a Champions League was in 2010. Juventus last won it in 1996.

Atletico Madrid won La Liga in 2014. Their first since 1996. They have never been champions of Europe.

The only two from that Super League that have any claim to being successful giants is Real and Barcelona. With both domestic and European success in recent times.

The truth of the matter is that these teams are trying to create a closed league for money alone. Nothing to do with sporting success or the quality of players in their teams. They are worried about teams like Leicester or West Ham or other "smaller" clubs coming along to take a share of the money. So if Real or Barca need to downsize they are maybe afraid that Sevilla or Villareal could come in and steal their place and start getting a share of the pie.

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

If you think about it, Nottingham Forest have won the European Cup more times than 4 of the so called ‘top six’