FUCK SUPER LEAGUE

[Rex]

Apologize to Bronto now before it gets ugly

[HaulCitgo]

The strategy will be a lot better the next time around. It’s obvious they did nothing to try to sell the players. Lionel Messi has the largest contract of all time, but did you know that there is only one other soccer player in the top 100? Only with an American style closed league does Eric Hosmer get $144 million for signing one piece of paper. They need to go after the Eric Hosmers of soccer.

Anyone know why this is. What's so different about theoretical relegation that costs cash. When was the last time on of the superleague teams was relegated? I assume that they would split up the media cash among themselves but how is that different than ucl? If it is, why would they want that anyway. If uefa is sucking off too much profit from champions league media deals shouldn't the teams that are always there leave and or gain leverage to renegotiate. In baseball it all about local media rights vs national contract cash I would think. Can the soccer teams not do this? Guess I need to understand the difference in business model and I could comprehend the uproar more.

[A_B]

The biggest team to take the drop in my memory (not counting Juventus who got dropped for off-field performances) is probably Leeds a 15 years ago or so? They were always up near the top of the table when I first started following, but started trying to spend like the big boys and it backfired.

[mister d]

I don't think it was a huge shock, but Cardiff spent pretty big (for them) before going down, right?

[A_B]

It's not a perfect measure, but if you go by stadium size, Sunderland's place in League 1 is a big outlier.

[Nonlinear FC]

Newcastle has been relegated twice in recent memory. Bigger stadium than Sunderland, fwiw.

[The Sybian]

The strategy will be a lot better the next time around. It’s obvious they did nothing to try to sell the players. Lionel Messi has the largest contract of all time, but did you know that there is only one other soccer player in the top 100? Only with an American style closed league does Eric Hosmer get $144 million for signing one piece of paper. They need to go after the Eric Hosmers of soccer.

Anyone know why this is. What's so different about theoretical relegation that costs cash. When was the last time on of the superleague teams was relegated? I assume that they would split up the media cash among themselves but how is that different than ucl? If it is, why would they want that anyway. If uefa is sucking off too much profit from champions league media deals shouldn't the teams that are always there leave and or gain leverage to renegotiate. In baseball it all about local media rights vs national contract cash I would think. Can the soccer teams not do this? Guess I need to understand the difference in business model and I could comprehend the uproar more.

Until the oil sheikhs, oligarchs and Americans started by European soccer teams, they were run as clubs in the traditional way. People joined their neighborhood soccer club, and it went up from youth teams to professional teams. They weren't money making ventures, but a community focal point where people played soccer and cheered on their local team. Some clubs are still run this way, but it's an impractical model to compete with Man City or Chelsea, where it's the plaything of a billionaire who doesn't care if he loses $100 million and will drastically overpay for a third string player who would star on just about any other team in the world.

As for relegation, clubs that operate as a business and can't sustain losses have to factor in for the possibility of relegation. According to Deloitte, winning the Championship playoff to get promoted to the EPL means an additional $215 million dollars for a club. If you are running a business and know there is a risk of instantly losing $215 in annual revenue, it will probably effect the level of risk you are willing to take, and the salaries you will pay employees or transfer fees you are willing to shell out to get a player.

[The Sybian]

The Men in Blazers were talking about Super League and blaming the American owners' mentality. As Davo said, American owners don't understand the point of relegation, as they want certainty in their investments. Guaranteed spots in Super League give them certainty in their $400+ million annual revenue, so they can spend accordingly.

Davo also gave a great anecdote about a pitch meeting with investors for a TV show. They were reviewing the financials for the potential if a show is a hit, middle of the road or a flop. One of the investors looked up and asked, "why wouldn't you just make hit shows?"

[Rex]

I’m no expert but I would think that the biggest difference in the models is player acquisition costs. The American-style leagues acquire almost all of their talent through an amateur draft in which they pay nothing to the player’s former teams. Obviously that’s not how it works in soccer. So when we talk about how much Man City spends, it is all in acquisition costs. Kevin De Bruyne’s new contract, which makes him their highest paid player by far, is somewhere in DeMar DeRozan range.

(That’s a basketball player, Syb)

[Nonlinear FC]

I said this up thread, but bears repeating: While the American model has a lot of drawbacks and certainly doesn't fit the current model employed by most (all?) of Europe, they HAVE figured out the need for guard rails on club/team spending on salaries. The weakest of these models is the luxury tax put in place in the 90s by MLB. But the other big three (and MLS, which is an extreme case) have put salary caps in place and, guess what, there's a pretty decent amount of parity and the fans are just fine with it.

I understand that they'd need to get all of the leagues/clubs on board, but this is the only way to curtail the massive disparities in Europe.

It's actually pretty amazing that societies that are much more comfortable with versions of socialism in their government (on a sliding scale) haven't gotten around to implementing something like this for soccer.

[degenerasian]

I said this up thread, but bears repeating: While the American model has a lot of drawbacks and certainly doesn't fit the current model employed by most (all?) of Europe, they HAVE figured out the need for guard rails on club/team spending on salaries. The weakest of these models is the luxury tax put in place in the 90s by MLB. But the other big three (and MLS, which is an extreme case) have put salary caps in place and, guess what, there's a pretty decent amount of parity and the fans are just fine with it.

I understand that they'd need to get all of the leagues/clubs on board, but this is the only way to curtail the massive disparities in Europe.

It's actually pretty amazing that societies that are much more comfortable with versions of socialism in their government (on a sliding scale) haven't gotten around to implementing something like this for soccer.

I think people like the disparities in Europe though. Because remember, you're not just winning your league title like in the US and that's it, you're winning your league title and then going off to play in a bigger tournament. If there is parity in your league, your champion will suck. There are multiple NFLs, not just one.

This is not new. Countries like Portugal or Holland have had the same champions over and over for 100 years and the fans are fine with it. In Holland, 3 teams have won every title since 1980, except one, Twente in 2010.
Most soccer fans i know from Europe cheer for a big team and a little team. Leeds was mentioned above, i had a co-worker who growing up cheering for Leeds as his big team and Stoke as true favorite local team where he lived. Then Stoke got bigger than Leeds.

[mister d]

I like salary caps because I think regional differences cause inherent imbalances but I don't like capping player wages with owners free to pocket the excess. The kind of cap I'd like to see if "players get __% of total league revenue". Say its 50%, so if there are revenues of $5B, players get $2.5B. 20 teams, each team has a cap of $125MM and they sign players as a percentage of cap space. DeBruyne gets 20% of the cap and if City's only allocates 95% of their cap, the remaining 5% is spread on that same percentage basis. The entire pool is paid out every time, avoid the very american issue of teams being paid to not even try to compete.

[The Sybian]

I said this up thread, but bears repeating: While the American model has a lot of drawbacks and certainly doesn't fit the current model employed by most (all?) of Europe, they HAVE figured out the need for guard rails on club/team spending on salaries. The weakest of these models is the luxury tax put in place in the 90s by MLB. But the other big three (and MLS, which is an extreme case) have put salary caps in place and, guess what, there's a pretty decent amount of parity and the fans are just fine with it.

I understand that they'd need to get all of the leagues/clubs on board, but this is the only way to curtail the massive disparities in Europe.

It's actually pretty amazing that societies that are much more comfortable with versions of socialism in their government (on a sliding scale) haven't gotten around to implementing something like this for soccer.

I just don't think you can have a functioning salary cap when players move between dozens of leagues. You can't have the same cap in every league, as the EPL cap would be meaningless in Holland. If every country had different caps, it would create even more of an advantage for richer leagues to poach players from lower leagues. I have no idea if this is true, but let's assume Ajax or any big club in a second tier country has a cap that is meaningful compared to other Dutch teams. They won't be able to afford the guys who are currently their highest paid players. It's bad enough that every super star in the Eredivisie will eventually move to England, Spain, or Italy, but with a salary cap, the next tier of Dutch stars will be forced out, too.

[Rush2112]

[Nonlinear FC]

I said this up thread, but bears repeating: While the American model has a lot of drawbacks and certainly doesn't fit the current model employed by most (all?) of Europe, they HAVE figured out the need for guard rails on club/team spending on salaries. The weakest of these models is the luxury tax put in place in the 90s by MLB. But the other big three (and MLS, which is an extreme case) have put salary caps in place and, guess what, there's a pretty decent amount of parity and the fans are just fine with it.

I understand that they'd need to get all of the leagues/clubs on board, but this is the only way to curtail the massive disparities in Europe.

It's actually pretty amazing that societies that are much more comfortable with versions of socialism in their government (on a sliding scale) haven't gotten around to implementing something like this for soccer.

I just don't think you can have a functioning salary cap when players move between dozens of leagues. You can't have the same cap in every league, as the EPL cap would be meaningless in Holland. If every country had different caps, it would create even more of an advantage for richer leagues to poach players from lower leagues. I have no idea if this is true, but let's assume Ajax or any big club in a second tier country has a cap that is meaningful compared to other Dutch teams. They won't be able to afford the guys who are currently their highest paid players. It's bad enough that every super star in the Eredivisie will eventually move to England, Spain, or Italy, but with a salary cap, the next tier of Dutch stars will be forced out, too.

I mean... They were able to get together to form the EU. Is it really impossible to come up with something that essentially caps the amount any given club can spend?

/self-admitted simpleton

[brian]

Any kind of meaningful cap is really only going to affect probably about 20 or so clubs in about six countries. They're the ones that need to be convinced and presumably UEFA and FIFA could craft some kind of meaningful/legal framework to make it happen, but those 20 clubs will never go for it, so...there's the rub.

[degenerasian]

remember, north american leagues have a commissioner that holds all the owners together. Soccer owners, even in a Super League, will stab each other in the back.

[wlu_lax6]

Wasn't Financial Fair Play the first step to this. I mean it was mostly to protect clubs from themselves but a step toward a model that created level rules.

Other sports don't have this issue because there is a clearly dominate league. Euro hoops maybe the closest model, but nobody is comparing a Eurolegue title to bottom of the NBA (or KHL to NHL). Maybe Rugby but the professional game there started multi-country.

[mister d]

I thought FFP was to protect the legacy rich teams from new rich teams showing up.

[Rex]

FFP feels very much like something a bureaucrat would do to make it look like they are doing something.

[sancarlos]

Most soccer fans i know from Europe cheer for a big team and a little team..

Yeah, we’re going to England for a wedding next year. The groom-to-be is a big football fan. He is originally from Woking and they live in Luton. So the guy tells me he cheers for Woking F.C. (National League tier 5), Luton Town (Championship League), but most especially... Liverpool.

[Pruitt]

FFP feels very much like something a bureaucrat would do to make it look like they are doing something.

That is exactly what it is.

City admitted to a loss of $180 million (USD) last season. Still, nowhere near their loss of over $400 million in 2011. Plus they have been running dodgy sponsorship deals with UAE companies for years.

If FFP was real, they would have been punished severely

[mister d]

But what's the intent of the "you can't spend more than you make from soccer sources" rule in the first place? Imagine applying that to another competitive business?

[A_B]

But what's the intent of the "you can't spend more than you make from soccer sources" rule in the first place? Imagine applying that to another competitive business?

Because the Russian and Middle Eastern Oligarchs are less amenable to losing hundreds of millions in other businesses?

[tennbengal]

[Giff]

And that wasn't even his worst quote yesterday!

[Rex]

[Rex]

It’s back, it’s so back.

A number of original Super League clubs who went soft after the PR disaster of the initial release are now holding firm on going soft.

If they back out, does that allow the West Hams and the Stuttgarts to step in and play Real and Barca for the next 50 years?

[govmentchedda]

Am I wrong in thinking today was actually two announcements? First, the court ruling against FIFA/UEFA, and second the specifics of the new Super League?

Promotion and relegation within a three tiered system? I fucking hate it. All to protect traditional powers. Fuck right off.

Barcelona are so fucking broke that instead of taking the full 15 day La Liga winter break, they are jetting overnight after LAST night's game, to play a game against Club America TONIGHT in Dallas for $5m.

[govmentchedda]

[degenerasian]

the crazy thing is, they had 2 years to come up with a good idea and that's the shit they want to serve? It's hilarious. The setup is a joke (14 of 16 clubs of the highest league would stay up, so the majority of the clubs would just play each other twice a year again and again), the financial aspect is even a bigger joke. I know Florentino wants this and Barcelona/Juventus need this, but it's just a piss poor concept. Good luck convincing clubs that joining this is worth the fan backlash.

[wlu_lax6]

the crazy thing is, they had 2 years to come up with a good idea and that's the shit they want to serve? It's hilarious. The setup is a joke (14 of 16 clubs of the highest league would stay up, so the majority of the clubs would just play each other twice a year again and again), the financial aspect is even a bigger joke. I know Florentino wants this and Barcelona/Juventus need this, but it's just a piss poor concept. Good luck convincing clubs that joining this is worth the fan backlash.

don't forget that the big boys would all play in the new club world cup too.

[degenerasian]

the crazy thing is, they had 2 years to come up with a good idea and that's the shit they want to serve? It's hilarious. The setup is a joke (14 of 16 clubs of the highest league would stay up, so the majority of the clubs would just play each other twice a year again and again), the financial aspect is even a bigger joke. I know Florentino wants this and Barcelona/Juventus need this, but it's just a piss poor concept. Good luck convincing clubs that joining this is worth the fan backlash.

don't forget that the big boys would all play in the new club world cup too.

The new club world cup once every 4 year has no footing yet. Might be a bust in 2025.

[Pruitt IV]

the crazy thing is, they had 2 years to come up with a good idea and that's the shit they want to serve? It's hilarious. The setup is a joke (14 of 16 clubs of the highest league would stay up, so the majority of the clubs would just play each other twice a year again and again), the financial aspect is even a bigger joke. I know Florentino wants this and Barcelona/Juventus need this, but it's just a piss poor concept. Good luck convincing clubs that joining this is worth the fan backlash.

don't forget that the big boys would all play in the new club world cup too.

And don't forget that the Champions League will be expanded next season, as will the European Championship and the World Cup.

[mister d]

Yes, fuck super league, but what about the “Club World Cup” that I definitely knew about back in November???

[degenerasian]

Yes, fuck super league, but what about the “Club World Cup” that I definitely knew about back in November???

It's being expanded for 2025 and hosted in the US. It replaces the confederation cup so can't be much worse. Has potential but will gave growing pains as the gap between UEFA clubs and other club is too large. The 12 UEFA teams should dominate the 32 team field. Until the Saudis buy everyone.

Seattle has qualified and the US will get another spot for hosting. Maybe appoint Miami and get Messi in.