Is the Champions League pointless? Critiquing European football

[rousseau]

Manchester United, Manchester City and Arsenal among nine 'super clubs' no-one can catch, warns UEFA report

Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool along with Spanish giants Real Madrid and Barcelona, Germany's Bayern Munich and France's Paris Saint-Germain are featured in a new report from UEFA as being among 'global brands' who 'monetise their huge supporter bases' around the world in ways never seen before.

In hard economic terms, these clubs have each boosted their annual income by around £100million each just from commercial sources - mainly club and shirt sponsors - over the past six years. The average increase for most of Europe's other 700-plus top division clubs in the same period has been well below £1m.

In the most basic terms, with a select number of European clubs being overwhelmingly rich, and no real limits on how much they can spend on players, is there any real value in winning something like the premier league, or champions league unless you're a team like Leicester?

After following football on the continent for a couple months the premier leagues and competitions look like something of a farce. Teams with brand power use the league to make profit, while smaller clubs perpetually bounce back and forth between leagues.

So in effect the Champion's League is a competition between a small number of rich owners.

 

[Goodchild]

So in effect the Champion's League is a competition between a small number of rich owners.

It may seem that way but then when you look at the last 5 years of the CL you see that Juventus, Atletico and Dortmund have all featured every year. Granted that none of them won, but they got there.

That all said, it really does feel like the leagues are a competition of the have's and the have not's are left to battle it out for the middle positions.

 

[rousseau]

So in effect the Champion's League is a competition between a small number of rich owners.

It may seem that way but then when you look at the last 5 years of the CL you see that Juventus, Atletico and Dortmund have all featured every year. Granted that none of them won, but they got there.

That all said, it really does feel like the leagues are a competition of the have's and the have not's are left to battle it out for the middle positions.

It looks to me like the leagues need to work together for some type of solution on salary cap, but given the number of profitable leagues, personalities involved, and players standing to lose profit it's a tricky situation.

I don't know.. come to think of it, if in material terms it's only the players losing from a cap maybe we should just stomach the broken system and look at it as entertainment that needs no sense of fairness.

 

[TSwizzle]

Football is well and truly fucked. Or at least a lot of the European top leagues are. The EPL, as a competition, is a farce. A battle between Russian oligarchs laundering money and oil rich playboys from the emirates. It has become part of the entertainment industry and sold its soul. The "supporters" of these clubs are just glory hunting wankers that have bought into the hype. Rarely watch the EPL now but must admit I enjoyed Chelsea v Crystal Palace this morning. Five, maybe six decent teams in the EPL, the rest are average and just make up the numbers for a "competition" that's really between a few clubs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Leicester City made it into the Champions League's knock out phase. Tottenham came really close to the next round. As far as pointless, Champions League is wildly popular. The only question is, are too many teams in it.

Yes, the big teams do really well. There isn't much parity at the top in Champions League. Is there supposed to be? Since 00-01, 9 teams (17 years) have won the Champions League, with the La Liga Little League taking nearly half of those. Since 1990, 14 teams in 27 years. In the 70s, Ajax, Bayern Munich, and Liverpool won 8 of the 10. Are people remembering parity when no such thing existed?

The EPL has been bouncing around parity wise. This year, there is Manchester City followed by a clump of four teams (Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester United, Arsenal), and then Chelsea, and the rest. Below them, the parity is intriguing. Stoke City are in danger of relegating, but a couple wins could put them well north of the relegation zone. Meanwhile, Championship promoters have been handling the EPL very well, as opposed to the constant send back that was more common a decade or two ago, "Hi Bradford... bye Bradford."

Recently, the top teams seem to be going bonkers. The transfer prices have exploded. The Neymar deal was beyond ridiculous... as was the Coutinho and Bale deals to La Liga which consists of a couple top teams and everyone else... though Real Madrid has been really struggling despite the absurd pocket book advantage. As far as being "truly fucked", the television deals that the EPL are making (even in the US) speaks otherwise.

 

[TSwizzle]

And there we have it, Manchester Utd, a team currently second in the EPL (Best League In The World ^tm) bounced out the Champions League with barely a wimper.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there we have it, Manchester Utd, a team currently second in the EPL (Best League In The World ^tm) bounced out the Champions League with barely a wimper.

Liverpool and Manchester City are into the quarters. Chelsea face Barcelona later today in an attempt to make it three.

2 La Liga (or 3 if Barcelona make it)
2 EPL (or 3 if Chelsea make it)
2 Serie A
1 Bundesliga

Pretty good parity. I have a hard time cheering on Chelsea, but better them than Barcelona.

 

[rousseau]

And there we have it, Manchester Utd, a team currently second in the EPL (Best League In The World ^tm) bounced out the Champions League with barely a wimper.

Liverpool and Manchester City are into the quarters. Chelsea face Barcelona later today in an attempt to make it three.

2 La Liga (or 3 if Barcelona make it)
2 EPL (or 3 if Chelsea make it)
2 Serie A
1 Bundesliga

Pretty good parity. I have a hard time cheering on Chelsea, but better them than Barcelona.

Eight of the nine super-clubs that the link in the original article mentioned made it to the round of 16. Not sure I'd call that parity.. between leagues maybe, but not among teams.

If the Champion's League has always been this lop-sided, then maybe there's just never been parity.

Kind of calls into question what exactly the purpose of a major league is, and how it should be run. Lots of variables there.

 

[TSwizzle]

If the Champion's League has always been this lop-sided, then maybe there's just never been parity.

Kind of calls into question what exactly the purpose of a major league is, and how it should be run. Lots of variables there.

Professional football (soccer) has gone into the entertainment industry. It's a product. It's all about brand and marketing for the top teams now. The European cup used to be a good knockout competition between the teams that won their domestic leagues and there was a bit more variety in the participants and its appeal was to the supporters of the respective clubs and less so to the wider audience. Once your team was out, the competition ceased to be relevant. Now the competition has a world wide market and there is money to be made. I don't understand why anyone in Japan (for example) would give a shit about Manchester Utd but apparently there is quite a bit of interest. Even here in the USA, I see people wearing EPL team gear. But just the top teams, you don't see any Wolverhampton Wanderers shirts or Leeds Utd, just Arsenal, Man Utd/City and a the occasional Liverpool. Could be tourists I suppose.

Anyway, there are still some good games to watch in the competition but for me, I don't watch very often. Watching football as a neutral is kind of boring, much better if your team is playing or if you have money on the outcome.

Oh, and now you get these daft "Super Cup" competitions popping up. There's a group of four European teams play in the USA for some cup or other. Might be more teams involved.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And there we have it, Manchester Utd, a team currently second in the EPL (Best League In The World ^tm) bounced out the Champions League with barely a wimper.

Liverpool and Manchester City are into the quarters. Chelsea face Barcelona later today in an attempt to make it three.

2 La Liga (or 3 if Barcelona make it)
2 EPL (or 3 if Chelsea make it)
2 Serie A
1 Bundesliga

Pretty good parity. I have a hard time cheering on Chelsea, but better them than Barcelona.

Eight of the nine super-clubs that the link in the original article mentioned made it to the round of 16. Not sure I'd call that parity.. between leagues maybe, but not among teams.

Among leagues yeah. Parity in the Champions League among teams hasn't exactly been forthcoming. It changes with time though as to which teams are the dynasties of the decade.

Kind of calls into question what exactly the purpose of a major league is, and how it should be run. Lots of variables there.

Make money. Why else do you think it exists?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the Champion's League has always been this lop-sided, then maybe there's just never been parity.

Kind of calls into question what exactly the purpose of a major league is, and how it should be run. Lots of variables there.

Professional football (soccer) has gone into the entertainment industry. It's a product. It's all about brand and marketing for the top teams now. The European cup used to be a good knockout competition between the teams that won their domestic leagues and there was a bit more variety in the participants and its appeal was to the supporters of the respective clubs and less so to the wider audience. Once your team was out, the competition ceased to be relevant. Now the competition has a world wide market and there is money to be made. I don't understand why anyone in Japan (for example) would give a shit about Manchester Utd but apparently there is quite a bit of interest. Even here in the USA, I see people wearing EPL team gear. But just the top teams, you don't see any Wolverhampton Wanderers shirts or Leeds Utd, just Arsenal, Man Utd/City and a the occasional Liverpool. Could be tourists I suppose.

I have my Stoke City kits, but yeah, how many people in the UK cheer on the Cardinals in the NFL? I'd say the fans in the US are a bit more spaced out among top EPL teams.

Anyway, there are still some good games to watch in the competition but for me, I don't watch very often. Watching football as a neutral is kind of boring, much better if your team is playing or if you have money on the outcome.

How is that different from other sports? At least in European Football, every game matters. If in the bottom half, the games still matter. The top half, but not fighting for first, the games matter.

Oh, and now you get these daft "Super Cup" competitions popping up. There's a group of four European teams play in the USA for some cup or other. Might be more teams involved.

The Friendly Cups are nuts. Ticket prices are through the roof. And the top tier talent isn't exactly on show.

 

[rousseau]

Eight of the nine super-clubs that the link in the original article mentioned made it to the round of 16. Not sure I'd call that parity.. between leagues maybe, but not among teams.

Among leagues yeah. Parity in the Champions League among teams hasn't exactly been forthcoming. It changes with time though as to which teams are the dynasties of the decade.

Kind of calls into question what exactly the purpose of a major league is, and how it should be run. Lots of variables there.

Make money. Why else do you think it exists?

Sure, but then you get into the question of 'who is making money', and 'what barriers are the rules we have in place creating for the teams that aren't making a lot of money, to make money'.

It doesn't strike me as overly fair for the owners of Man City to outspend everyone else, run a few analytics programs, and then dominate the EPL for thirty years. I mean, at least if we take the fact that sports are a competition of skill, and not ability to spend, seriously. But as it stands it's clear that the competition itself is not being taken seriously, and so the winners over time are those who are rich, not those who manage or perform well.

If you don't care about that, fair enough, but if I'm watching a league I'd rather see enforced parity between teams, where you can't just dominate the sport because of your money. Like what happens in the NHL.

On the other hand, when you look at leagues like the MLB one of the main reasons there isn't a salary cap is because the players don't want it. Parity increases competition, but it also means that the players themselves make less money. Given that they're the ones committing their lives to the sport, I think one could argue that they should ultimately be the one's benefiting from any rules.

 

[TSwizzle]

It doesn't strike me as overly fair for the owners of Man City to outspend everyone else, run a few analytics programs, and then dominate the EPL for thirty years. I mean, at least if we take the fact that sports are a competition of skill, and not ability to spend, seriously. But as it stands it's clear that the competition itself is not being taken seriously, and so the winners over time are those who are rich, not those who manage or perform well.

Man City's rise was sudden and purely down to (foreign) money. City had been languishing for decades. For years the EPL was dominated by Man Utd but a lot of that was down to their canny manager, Alex Ferguson. The EPL is now won with money. Blackburn did it years ago but it was unsustainable for their owner and they slid back down to where they belong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Among leagues yeah. Parity in the Champions League among teams hasn't exactly been forthcoming. It changes with time though as to which teams are the dynasties of the decade.

Make money. Why else do you think it exists?

Sure, but then you get into the question of 'who is making money', and 'what barriers are the rules we have in place creating for the teams that aren't making a lot of money, to make money'.

Well sure, the squads owned by billionaires and Arab oil have access to a boatload of money and it makes it hard for local ownership like with Stoke City to compete. But then again, there is Championship, League One, League Two, lots of lower leagues that don't have the resources to get to the EPL. Take Blackpool who went up and then back down. The owner took the winning, then losing in stride.

It doesn't strike me as overly fair for the owners of Man City to outspend everyone else, run a few analytics programs, and then dominate the EPL for thirty years.

Two words, Leicester City. Yes, three teams have dominated the EPL in the last ten years, mainly because of money. Though Manchester United is locally owned. Man City is oil money and Chelsea is Russian billionaire bucks.

I mean, at least if we take the fact that sports are a competition of skill, and not ability to spend, seriously. But as it stands it's clear that the competition itself is not being taken seriously, and so the winners over time are those who are rich, not those who manage or perform well.

I always liked the idea of a transfer tax, which gets deposited to the teams that don't spend over the limits in transfer fees.

The difference with the EPL and American sports is relegation and cups. Every game matters. Stoke City was in Europa, so was Fulham and Wigan. It can happen. The seasons in the US end before the season actually ends. The drama up to the end of the season, while maybe not at the top of the table, is what drives European Football.

 

[TSwizzle]

I have my Stoke City kits, but yeah, how many people in the UK cheer on the Cardinals in the NFL? I'd say the fans in the US are a bit more spaced out among top EPL teams.

Well the people of London are being exposed to NFL games now and I believe there are plans to expand the league and have a team playing at Wembley.

The Friendly Cups are nuts. Ticket prices are through the roof. And the top tier talent isn't exactly on show.

As I say, all part of the entertainment industry. Recently there was a game being played in LA, Barcelona and some other team, can't remember who and the ticket prices were silly but the crowds flocked to see the game. And I know that Neymar and possibly Messi weren't even in the squad.

 

[TSwizzle]

Two words, Leicester City.

This was an anomaly. Blackburn won it back in the early 90's I think. Where are Blackburn now ? Yes the owner threw money at it but it was a time where the EPL was not awash with the money that it is now.

 

[TSwizzle]

Root, toot and Chelsea are oot !! Taxi for Conte !!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Chelsea are definitely sucking air right now. They are within grasp of fourth, but Liverpool's form recently has been pretty good (not their typical up and down crap). Chelsea will have to earn their champion's league spot. They sure the heck don't want to play in Europa.

Two words, Leicester City.

This was an anomaly.

Very much so, but it did happen. And it was done sustainably, unlike Blackburn or Portsmouth. I'm all for a transfer cap myself with a tax. It'd actually be nice because we'd finally find out what these actual transfer fees are, instead of the mystical ones that get reported.

 

[rousseau]

Two words, Leicester City.

This was an anomaly. Blackburn won it back in the early 90's I think. Where are Blackburn now ? Yes the owner threw money at it but it was a time where the EPL was not awash with the money that it is now.

Yea, statistically it would be weirder if a lesser team didn't win it now and then.

 

[rousseau]

If the Champion's League has always been this lop-sided, then maybe there's just never been parity.

Kind of calls into question what exactly the purpose of a major league is, and how it should be run. Lots of variables there.

Professional football (soccer) has gone into the entertainment industry. It's a product. It's all about brand and marketing for the top teams now. The European cup used to be a good knockout competition between the teams that won their domestic leagues and there was a bit more variety in the participants and its appeal was to the supporters of the respective clubs and less so to the wider audience. Once your team was out, the competition ceased to be relevant. Now the competition has a world wide market and there is money to be made. I don't understand why anyone in Japan (for example) would give a shit about Manchester Utd but apparently there is quite a bit of interest. Even here in the USA, I see people wearing EPL team gear. But just the top teams, you don't see any Wolverhampton Wanderers shirts or Leeds Utd, just Arsenal, Man Utd/City and a the occasional Liverpool. Could be tourists I suppose.

Anyway, there are still some good games to watch in the competition but for me, I don't watch very often. Watching football as a neutral is kind of boring, much better if your team is playing or if you have money on the outcome.

Oh, and now you get these daft "Super Cup" competitions popping up. There's a group of four European teams play in the USA for some cup or other. Might be more teams involved.

While there are a lot of factors involved, this must be a big part of it. What would happen to Man United if they were relegated? What would happen if they were out of the premier league for a number of years? That's a lot of money to be lost, and a big incentive to keep the rules as they are now.