TSL is surely an idea whose time has come. Plenty of other successful sports thrive without the relegation/promotion model. If the teams are consistently shit then the franchises get sold or move cities.
The US franchise system works because there is a massive college system 'underneath' in the NFL. It's also been there forever, really no parallel to european football.
Its also works because there really isn't anywhere else you can go to play professional hand egg...there is Canada, who play a different form of it and every other attempt to have a league has failed.
As you are still talking football (yawn) can someone please explain why Chelsea are pretty strong favourites to win the FA cup when Leicester are higher in the league?
1) More Chelsea fans therefore more people bet on Chelsea. 2) Residual expectation that the big club wins - Leicester will have to have been 'big' for some time before this is overcome. 3) The final is being played in London (as always) - I don't have the stats to hand, but ISTR London teams do disproportionately well at Wembley.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
It's almost like 6 clubs have been invited from England to ensure it gets round Premier League rules.
So the other 14 clubs resign from the Premier League and reform it without the 6 Prima Donna clubs. Promote 6 new clubs from the Championship to replace them. Also ban the 6 clubs from playing in the FA cup or any other domestic competition and ban players from those clubs from playing for England.
Basically shut out the 6 clubs from all domestic competition.
And they get the television revenue they need to pay their bills from where?
Given that Sky seem to be opposed to this plan as well I suspect they - assuming you are talking about the other 14 clubs - take the revenue with them. No club should be big enough to wreck the game in this way.
Maybe they shouldn't. But they are.
The money goes with the big 6 clubs, not the Premier League. If the Premier League expels the Big 6 (which it seems they can't do) then they lose the money, not the other way around.
Actually, I think the money follows the players. They are crucial in all of this.
And excitement, the EPL is worth the subscription fee for Sky Sports because every week there is a lot of greatly entertaining football on TV. Watching the "big clubs" play each other endlessly with nothing at stake is going to become dull.
I had a think about it, I'd be ok with breaking away from UEFA, but the idea of 12 or 15 clubs essentially not having anything to worry about to get into the cup the following season is what disgusts me, it is the very antithesis of free and fair competition. The clubs are creating a cartel at the top of football to try and concentrate the wealth between the 12 of them.
The beauty of the EPL is the unpredictability, every team can and does beat each other e.g. WBA stuffing Chelsea the other week.
Agree - and Leeds beating Man City away just last week. Sheer joy.
But most of the time, the big six beat the smaller clubs. If they all go away, then the league becomes more competitive, and perhaps their pretend European super league also becomes more competitive?
The US franchise system works because there is a massive college system 'underneath' in the NFL. It's also been there forever, really no parallel to european football.
Maybe baseball is the better comparison. Each franchise owns half a dozen or more minor league teams of varying standards through which prospects are moved. Can see a "farm" system evolving. We already have a proto one.
As you are still talking football (yawn) can someone please explain why Chelsea are pretty strong favourites to win the FA cup when Leicester are higher in the league?
1) More Chelsea fans therefore more people bet on Chelsea. 2) Residual expectation that the big club wins - Leicester will have to have been 'big' for some time before this is overcome. 3) The final is being played in London (as always) - I don't have the stats to hand, but ISTR London teams do disproportionately well at Wembley.
1) and 2), at least, point towards value in backing Leicester then.
Chelsea current form is better to be fair but not by much.
As you are still talking football (yawn) can someone please explain why Chelsea are pretty strong favourites to win the FA cup when Leicester are higher in the league?
1) More Chelsea fans therefore more people bet on Chelsea. 2) Residual expectation that the big club wins - Leicester will have to have been 'big' for some time before this is overcome. 3) The final is being played in London (as always) - I don't have the stats to hand, but ISTR London teams do disproportionately well at Wembley.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
It's almost like 6 clubs have been invited from England to ensure it gets round Premier League rules.
So the other 14 clubs resign from the Premier League and reform it without the 6 Prima Donna clubs. Promote 6 new clubs from the Championship to replace them. Also ban the 6 clubs from playing in the FA cup or any other domestic competition and ban players from those clubs from playing for England.
Basically shut out the 6 clubs from all domestic competition.
How to bankrupt the rest of English football in three easy lessons.
But the superleague is going to bankrupt English football anyway. The big six will field B teams. They will be so much richer it’ll be painful to watch the unequal matches. With no euro qualification much becomes meaningless
It’s the end of the EPL so the other clubs might as well threaten their own nuclear option
Your first paragraph is completely self-contradictory.
If they're "so much richer" but fielding "B teams" then how would that cause unequal matches? The need to field B teams would counteract part of the increased wealth which lets be honest has been a factor since the Champions League was invented.
Because even their B teams will be waaaay better than West Ham or Southampton. They will rest their best players for the midweek superleague
Maybe but what is the incentive to play their best teams in the superleague from which they cannot be relegated? There might need to be a big prize for winning or it will be the European equivalent of the League Cup.
Interesting point. The cash distribution within the superleague is also perverse. €30m for winning it (I read) but a founding father team gets €100m just for participation
So even if you do ‘qualify’ you’ll never get the chance to become a big club, the disgusting dozen will always have vastly more money than you. For the rest of time
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
It's almost like 6 clubs have been invited from England to ensure it gets round Premier League rules.
So the other 14 clubs resign from the Premier League and reform it without the 6 Prima Donna clubs. Promote 6 new clubs from the Championship to replace them. Also ban the 6 clubs from playing in the FA cup or any other domestic competition and ban players from those clubs from playing for England.
Basically shut out the 6 clubs from all domestic competition.
And they get the television revenue they need to pay their bills from where?
Given that Sky seem to be opposed to this plan as well I suspect they - assuming you are talking about the other 14 clubs - take the revenue with them. No club should be big enough to wreck the game in this way.
Maybe they shouldn't. But they are.
The money goes with the big 6 clubs, not the Premier League. If the Premier League expels the Big 6 (which it seems they can't do) then they lose the money, not the other way around.
Actually, I think the money follows the players. They are crucial in all of this.
And excitement, the EPL is worth the subscription fee for Sky Sports because every week there is a lot of greatly entertaining football on TV. Watching the "big clubs" play each other endlessly with nothing at stake is going to become dull.
I had a think about it, I'd be ok with breaking away from UEFA, but the idea of 12 or 15 clubs essentially not having anything to worry about to get into the cup the following season is what disgusts me, it is the very antithesis of free and fair competition. The clubs are creating a cartel at the top of football to try and concentrate the wealth between the 12 of them.
Yes, some form of euro league is probably inevitable
But it’s the closed shop, US franchise, no-relegation format which is so abhorrent. It’s ghastly and destructive and will produce endless boring meaningless games (with no away fans). It demolishes domestic leagues as a mere by-product
Come on Boris, save British footie
I agree, but where did you get the bit about no away fans??
How many scousers can afford to fly to Italy and Spain ten times a year?
A surprising number, as they pretty much already do...and remember the new CL format will have them doing pretty much that.
Remember when the CL was qualifying, then two group stages, then knock out.
🚨 BREAKING: Boris Johnson has announced that he will make sure the European Super League doesn’t go ahead as it stands #mufc #mujournal
If Boris can kill this he wins six terms
Has he really or is this a joke? Nothing on the news about him announcing that.
More details were expected when Dowden makes a Commons statement at about 5pm on Monday.
Speaking on a visit to Gloucestershire, the prime minister said: “I don’t like the look of these proposals, and we’ll be consulted about what we can do.”
The prime minister told reporters: “We are going to look at everything that we can do with the football authorities to make sure that this doesn’t go ahead in the way that it’s currently being proposed. I don’t think that it’s good news for fans, I don’t think it’s good news for football in this country.
“These clubs are not just great global brands – of course they’re great global brands – they’re also clubs that have originated historically from their towns, from their cities, from their local communities, they should have a link with those fans, and with the fanbase in their community. So it is very, very important that that continues to be the case.”
They originated from their home towns, but they've been ought and sold many times. The original owners no longer have a claim on them. This reminds me of when Man United fans celebrated raising millions when the club floated on the stock exchange, only to protest vehemently a few years later when the club was bought by the Glazers. If you're going to sell your club to everyone, you don't retain a claim to who subsequently acquires it. There are hundreds of examples of community clubs - football and other sports - up and down the country, from the small to the reasonably big (Bournemouth, I think?). These are the sorts of clubs which need our support and protection. Those that have already been sold can look elsewhere.
For the clubs involved, whether in the Super League or just shut out of it, this is just the devil come to claim his due. Consider the suggested remedies;
"Fans should have a majority say on boards" (so people who paid good money to buy these clubs in commercial good faith should have control over their purchases taken from them), "they should be forced to put the matches on FTA" (what does that do to the TV rights of other sports? Stay on the government's side, or else?), "ban police from controlling the crowds" (again, really? Is public safety only for things the government approves of?)
They are all huge Pandora's boxes, except the boxes are metal, can-shaped and full of worms. Because, ghastly as this plan is, there's not much that a government can do against determined corporations which doesn't make things worse overall. Hence globalisation and its discontents.
(I'm still expecting this to play out like the launch of the PL; the top clubs getting sufficient money and power to satisfy their current needs and any pyramid access being tokenistic in practice. The greedy dozen will always be near the top, and they will be joined by a ever changing cast of rubes and hicks who will do well to survive two years in a row. UEFA will be allowed to stick their name on it, but that's as far as it will go. Because the realpolitik is that big club names with big money will trump everything else, as always.)
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
It's almost like 6 clubs have been invited from England to ensure it gets round Premier League rules.
So the other 14 clubs resign from the Premier League and reform it without the 6 Prima Donna clubs. Promote 6 new clubs from the Championship to replace them. Also ban the 6 clubs from playing in the FA cup or any other domestic competition and ban players from those clubs from playing for England.
Basically shut out the 6 clubs from all domestic competition.
And they get the television revenue they need to pay their bills from where?
Given that Sky seem to be opposed to this plan as well I suspect they - assuming you are talking about the other 14 clubs - take the revenue with them. No club should be big enough to wreck the game in this way.
Maybe they shouldn't. But they are.
The money goes with the big 6 clubs, not the Premier League. If the Premier League expels the Big 6 (which it seems they can't do) then they lose the money, not the other way around.
Actually, I think the money follows the players. They are crucial in all of this.
And excitement, the EPL is worth the subscription fee for Sky Sports because every week there is a lot of greatly entertaining football on TV. Watching the "big clubs" play each other endlessly with nothing at stake is going to become dull.
I had a think about it, I'd be ok with breaking away from UEFA, but the idea of 12 or 15 clubs essentially not having anything to worry about to get into the cup the following season is what disgusts me, it is the very antithesis of free and fair competition. The clubs are creating a cartel at the top of football to try and concentrate the wealth between the 12 of them.
Yes, some form of euro league is probably inevitable
But it’s the closed shop, US franchise, no-relegation format which is so abhorrent. It’s ghastly and destructive and will produce endless boring meaningless games (with no away fans). It demolishes domestic leagues as a mere by-product
Come on Boris, save British footie
I agree, but where did you get the bit about no away fans??
How many scousers can afford to fly to Italy and Spain ten times a year?
BREAKING Boris Johnson vows to block plans for Super League 'by the elite, for the elite'
Boris detractors must be having a 'mare' today
Of all the stories that influences red wall voters this is the one and if he manages to stop or even moderate it he will be very popular indeed
Or it may remind people once more that almost every positive thing Johnson does is nicked from Jeremy "ahead of his time" Corbyn. Making the clubs accountable to the fans was yet another terrific policy of his from the glory days.
The "big six" greed machines wouldn't have even comtemplated this move if a Corbyn led Labour government were in power. They'd have known for a fact it couldn't fly.
By contrast, and as per usual, "Boris" is simply seeking to ingratiate.
lol. No one is going to look fondly back and think ‘ahhh, Jeremy Corbyn would have saved English football’
Boris is a populist. He knows it will be extremely popular, stopping this grotesque breakaway.
Granted he'll get away with this one, but there's a limit to how far he can drag the Tory party away from its core values before its traditional supporters smell a rat.
I suppose the other Premier League clubs could withdraw from it and rejoin the Football League. Split out the Championship top six and rearrange the rest.
BREAKING Boris Johnson vows to block plans for Super League 'by the elite, for the elite'
Boris detractors must be having a 'mare' today
Of all the stories that influences red wall voters this is the one and if he manages to stop or even moderate it he will be very popular indeed
Or it may remind people once more that almost every positive thing Johnson does is nicked from Jeremy "ahead of his time" Corbyn. Making the clubs accountable to the fans was yet another terrific policy of his from the glory days.
The "big six" greed machines wouldn't have even comtemplated this move if a Corbyn led Labour government were in power. They'd have known for a fact it couldn't fly.
By contrast, and as per usual, "Boris" is simply seeking to ingratiate.
lol. No one is going to look fondly back and think ‘ahhh, Jeremy Corbyn would have saved English football’
Boris is a populist. He knows it will be extremely popular, stopping this grotesque breakaway.
Granted he'll get away with this one, but there's a limit to how far he can drag the Tory party away from its core values before its traditional supporters smell a rat.
If Boris manages to see this off and force the big six into retreat then even I'd bloody vote for him.
Mike Ashley @MoneyMikeAshley Proud to announce Sports Direct will be among 6 founding stores of the high street Super League alongside Shoe Zone, Fat Face, Clinton Cards, Wilko, and Mountain Warehouse.
🚨 BREAKING: Boris Johnson has announced that he will make sure the European Super League doesn’t go ahead as it stands #mufc #mujournal
If Boris can kill this he wins six terms
Has he really or is this a joke? Nothing on the news about him announcing that.
More details were expected when Dowden makes a Commons statement at about 5pm on Monday.
Speaking on a visit to Gloucestershire, the prime minister said: “I don’t like the look of these proposals, and we’ll be consulted about what we can do.”
The prime minister told reporters: “We are going to look at everything that we can do with the football authorities to make sure that this doesn’t go ahead in the way that it’s currently being proposed. I don’t think that it’s good news for fans, I don’t think it’s good news for football in this country.
“These clubs are not just great global brands – of course they’re great global brands – they’re also clubs that have originated historically from their towns, from their cities, from their local communities, they should have a link with those fans, and with the fanbase in their community. So it is very, very important that that continues to be the case.”
They originated from their home towns, but they've been ought and sold many times. The original owners no longer have a claim on them. This reminds me of when Man United fans celebrated raising millions when the club floated on the stock exchange, only to protest vehemently a few years later when the club was bought by the Glazers. If you're going to sell your club to everyone, you don't retain a claim to who subsequently acquires it. There are hundreds of examples of community clubs - football and other sports - up and down the country, from the small to the reasonably big (Bournemouth, I think?). These are the sorts of clubs which need our support and protection. Those that have already been sold can look elsewhere.
For the clubs involved, whether in the Super League or just shut out of it, this is just the devil come to claim his due. Consider the suggested remedies;
"Fans should have a majority say on boards" (so people who paid good money to buy these clubs in commercial good faith should have control over their purchases taken from them), "they should be forced to put the matches on FTA" (what does that do to the TV rights of other sports? Stay on the government's side, or else?), "ban police from controlling the crowds" (again, really? Is public safety only for things the government approves of?)
They are all huge Pandora's boxes, except the boxes are metal, can-shaped and full of worms. Because, ghastly as this plan is, there's not much that a government can do against determined corporations which doesn't make things worse overall. Hence globalisation and its discontents.
(I'm still expecting this to play out like the launch of the PL; the top clubs getting sufficient money and power to satisfy their current needs and any pyramid access being tokenistic in practice. The greedy dozen will always be near the top, and they will be joined by a ever changing cast of rubes and hicks who will do well to survive two years in a row. UEFA will be allowed to stick their name on it, but that's as far as it will go. Because the realpolitik is that big club names with big money will trump everything else, as always.)
Agree with all of this, and particularly admire the elegant mixing of the Pandora's Box/Can of worms metaphor. We are going to end up with a worst of all worlds where if a club is rich enough it gets to qualify for the permanent riches of the Champions league permanently, aren't we? Football is going to lack the bottle to tell them all to go their own way.
BREAKING Boris Johnson vows to block plans for Super League 'by the elite, for the elite'
Boris detractors must be having a 'mare' today
Of all the stories that influences red wall voters this is the one and if he manages to stop or even moderate it he will be very popular indeed
Or it may remind people once more that almost every positive thing Johnson does is nicked from Jeremy "ahead of his time" Corbyn. Making the clubs accountable to the fans was yet another terrific policy of his from the glory days.
The "big six" greed machines wouldn't have even comtemplated this move if a Corbyn led Labour government were in power. They'd have known for a fact it couldn't fly.
By contrast, and as per usual, "Boris" is simply seeking to ingratiate.
lol. No one is going to look fondly back and think ‘ahhh, Jeremy Corbyn would have saved English football’
Boris is a populist. He knows it will be extremely popular, stopping this grotesque breakaway.
Granted he'll get away with this one, but there's a limit to how far he can drag the Tory party away from its core values before its traditional supporters smell a rat.
If Boris manages to see this off and force the big six into retreat then even I'd bloody vote for him.
He’d end up getting his name sung favourably on the Kop. A Tory leader....
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
It's almost like 6 clubs have been invited from England to ensure it gets round Premier League rules.
So the other 14 clubs resign from the Premier League and reform it without the 6 Prima Donna clubs. Promote 6 new clubs from the Championship to replace them. Also ban the 6 clubs from playing in the FA cup or any other domestic competition and ban players from those clubs from playing for England.
Basically shut out the 6 clubs from all domestic competition.
And they get the television revenue they need to pay their bills from where?
Given that Sky seem to be opposed to this plan as well I suspect they - assuming you are talking about the other 14 clubs - take the revenue with them. No club should be big enough to wreck the game in this way.
Maybe they shouldn't. But they are.
The money goes with the big 6 clubs, not the Premier League. If the Premier League expels the Big 6 (which it seems they can't do) then they lose the money, not the other way around.
Actually, I think the money follows the players. They are crucial in all of this.
And excitement, the EPL is worth the subscription fee for Sky Sports because every week there is a lot of greatly entertaining football on TV. Watching the "big clubs" play each other endlessly with nothing at stake is going to become dull.
I had a think about it, I'd be ok with breaking away from UEFA, but the idea of 12 or 15 clubs essentially not having anything to worry about to get into the cup the following season is what disgusts me, it is the very antithesis of free and fair competition. The clubs are creating a cartel at the top of football to try and concentrate the wealth between the 12 of them.
The beauty of the EPL is the unpredictability, every team can and does beat each other e.g. WBA stuffing Chelsea the other week.
Agree - and Leeds beating Man City away just last week. Sheer joy.
But most of the time, the big six beat the smaller clubs. If they all go away, then the league becomes more competitive, and perhaps their pretend European super league also becomes more competitive?
For those of us who support PL teams outside the big six, there's nothing quite as exciting as Liverpool or Man United coming down to, say, Brighton, and Brighton having a chance, albeit small, of beating them - they've certainly beaten Man Utd a couple of times. There's a real sense of occasion, a buzz, around the host city. That isn't replicated with the other PL clubs.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
Granted he'll get away with this one, but there's a limit to how far he can drag the Tory party away from its core values before its traditional supporters smell a rat.
You may have noticed that the tories have a new set of core values based around massive deficit funded intervention by the state.
BREAKING Boris Johnson vows to block plans for Super League 'by the elite, for the elite'
Boris detractors must be having a 'mare' today
Of all the stories that influences red wall voters this is the one and if he manages to stop or even moderate it he will be very popular indeed
Or it may remind people once more that almost every positive thing Johnson does is nicked from Jeremy "ahead of his time" Corbyn. Making the clubs accountable to the fans was yet another terrific policy of his from the glory days.
The "big six" greed machines wouldn't have even comtemplated this move if a Corbyn led Labour government were in power. They'd have known for a fact it couldn't fly.
By contrast, and as per usual, "Boris" is simply seeking to ingratiate.
lol. No one is going to look fondly back and think ‘ahhh, Jeremy Corbyn would have saved English football’
Boris is a populist. He knows it will be extremely popular, stopping this grotesque breakaway.
Granted he'll get away with this one, but there's a limit to how far he can drag the Tory party away from its core values before its traditional supporters smell a rat.
If Boris manages to see this off and force the big six into retreat then even I'd bloody vote for him.
But you said the other day you'd (reluctantly) be voting Tory anyway because although they're a bunch of clueless incompetents they're the only defence against the sort of superwokery that leads to 9 year olds chopping their balls off and becoming girls.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
Maybe not, but those "losers" built up Liverpool FC so it was able to pay Mo Salah's salary.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Rumours Jose refused to take training this morning over this... Fair play if true. What do other managers think? Have they been consulted? Not sure this fits with Klopp's politics for one.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
This must be at least part of the thinking. To have Arsenal or Spurs in a "super league" stretches the concept to a breaking point. To have both suggests to me that a blocking majority was needed vis a vis the EPL.
BTW Juventus shares up 10% this morning as are Man U shares on the New York pre-market. That increases the Glazer's interest (81% of $2.5bn) by just over $200m. Anyone who thinks this is some sort of bluff is deceiving themselves.
Actually, thinking about it, these clubs are bloody lucky the fans aren’t in the stadiums right now.
Yes, I agree. Leeds are at home to Liverpool tonight: with fans there, Liverpool players (and supporters) would have got a torrid time even from the gentle, kindly Leeds fans. It would have been dynamite. Shame.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
The Independent are reporting that the decision to sack Jose was made on Friday so that poo poos the protest theory.
That doesn't make any sense. The Independent are being fed a damage control story by the Spurs board and they're repeating it without actually checking it. If the decision to sack him was made on Friday then he would have been sacked on Saturday morning with a replacement in place before the weekend of the cup final. There aren't even any candidates to take over right now.
Presumably Brendan Rodgers is the target? He can't stay at Leicester forever, needs a big club.
Why would you (prior to yesterday) go from Leicester to Tottenham?
Granted he'll get away with this one, but there's a limit to how far he can drag the Tory party away from its core values before its traditional supporters smell a rat.
You may have noticed that the tories have a new set of core values based around massive deficit funded intervention by the state.
I have. But there are surely many of them out there who cling to their traditional belief in rapacious predator capitalism.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
Rumours Jose refused to take training this morning over this... Fair play if true. What do other managers think? Have they been consulted? Not sure this fits with Klopp's politics for one.
If it is true and it might enable Spurs to sack him for breach of contract, might have cost Jose £10 million.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Inconsequential?!
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
As someone who has never much liked football and really can't see the appeal it's most entertaining to sit back and watch this self immolation - The money and greed involved in this "sport" has been out of control for years and now it looks like it's going to bring the whole show crashing down. Ironic.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Same goes for United.
I don't think so. Where the top clubs and the top players are, there will always be 50,000 fans prepared to pay and watch.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
It's almost like 6 clubs have been invited from England to ensure it gets round Premier League rules.
So the other 14 clubs resign from the Premier League and reform it without the 6 Prima Donna clubs. Promote 6 new clubs from the Championship to replace them. Also ban the 6 clubs from playing in the FA cup or any other domestic competition and ban players from those clubs from playing for England.
Basically shut out the 6 clubs from all domestic competition.
And they get the television revenue they need to pay their bills from where?
Given that Sky seem to be opposed to this plan as well I suspect they - assuming you are talking about the other 14 clubs - take the revenue with them. No club should be big enough to wreck the game in this way.
Maybe they shouldn't. But they are.
The money goes with the big 6 clubs, not the Premier League. If the Premier League expels the Big 6 (which it seems they can't do) then they lose the money, not the other way around.
Actually, I think the money follows the players. They are crucial in all of this.
And excitement, the EPL is worth the subscription fee for Sky Sports because every week there is a lot of greatly entertaining football on TV. Watching the "big clubs" play each other endlessly with nothing at stake is going to become dull.
I had a think about it, I'd be ok with breaking away from UEFA, but the idea of 12 or 15 clubs essentially not having anything to worry about to get into the cup the following season is what disgusts me, it is the very antithesis of free and fair competition. The clubs are creating a cartel at the top of football to try and concentrate the wealth between the 12 of them.
Yes, some form of euro league is probably inevitable
But it’s the closed shop, US franchise, no-relegation format which is so abhorrent. It’s ghastly and destructive and will produce endless boring meaningless games (with no away fans). It demolishes domestic leagues as a mere by-product
Come on Boris, save British footie
I agree, but where did you get the bit about no away fans??
How many scousers can afford to fly to Italy and Spain ten times a year?
How many Scousers watch Liverpool away from home?
A not inconsiderabe number. They normally take up the bulk of, if not all of their allocation. Reasons for this are: 1) Let's consider a Liverpool fan from, say, Hunts Cross. It takes him half a hour and £5 to get to Anfield; it takes him an hour and £10 to get to Old Trafford. Actually, there are typically at least half a dozen away matches a year for which the time and financial outlay of getting to and getting a ticket for an away match is, compared to the cost of a home match. This will not apply when the away match is in, say, Madrid. 2) But actually, there are a lot of Liverpool fans not actually from Liverpool. For many Liverpool fans in the south, the times when Liverpool play in the south present easier opportunities to watch their team than travelling to Anfield. Again, this hardly applies in Madrid. (In reality, it will, a bit. But there are far, far more Liverpool fans within 40 miles of London than within 40 miles of Madrid). 3) And actually, even for the Liverpool fan from Hunt's Cross, London isn't that difficult or expensive to get to (compared to, say, Madrid). It is rare to need overnight accommodation for away matches in the UK (though the schedulers will often try to make it so).
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
Yeah. BIG losers are the other 14. And the ones striving to get there. They have influence, investors, supporters and power too.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
Yes, removing the top four/six competition at the top of the table will make the season feel completely sterile. If the big six are guaranteed elite European football every season in a closed shop league where they get more money for just showing up than the winner of the PL gets then all they really need to do is not get relegated.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Same goes for United.
I don't think so. Where the top clubs and the top players are, there will always be 50,000 fans prepared to pay and watch.
There is a difference between sitting in a capacity stadium full of people with no ties to the club, and sitting in a capacity stadium overflowing with love for their club and a sense of history.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
Mesut Özil @MesutOzil1088 Kids grow up dreaming to win the World Cup and the Champions League - not any Super League. The enjoyment of big games is that they only happen once or twice a year, not every week. Really hard to understand for all football fans out there...⚽💔
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
I don't believe the PL CAN expelI the 6 because it requires a 75% majority under Rule B6 and thus the 6 can block it.
Of course the government could intervene with primary legislation. I assume maybe the PL could go to the courts for an injunction?
This must be at least part of the thinking. To have Arsenal or Spurs in a "super league" stretches the concept to a breaking point. To have both suggests to me that a blocking majority was needed vis a vis the EPL.
BTW Juventus shares up 10% this morning as are Man U shares on the New York pre-market. That increases the Glazer's interest (81% of $2.5bn) by just over $200m. Anyone who thinks this is some sort of bluff is deceiving themselves.
Maybe. But the 12 ‘founding fathers’ are also the 12 richest clubs (bar Bayern and PSG)
🚨 BREAKING: Boris Johnson has announced that he will make sure the European Super League doesn’t go ahead as it stands #mufc #mujournal
If Boris can kill this he wins six terms
Has he really or is this a joke? Nothing on the news about him announcing that.
More details were expected when Dowden makes a Commons statement at about 5pm on Monday.
Speaking on a visit to Gloucestershire, the prime minister said: “I don’t like the look of these proposals, and we’ll be consulted about what we can do.”
The prime minister told reporters: “We are going to look at everything that we can do with the football authorities to make sure that this doesn’t go ahead in the way that it’s currently being proposed. I don’t think that it’s good news for fans, I don’t think it’s good news for football in this country.
“These clubs are not just great global brands – of course they’re great global brands – they’re also clubs that have originated historically from their towns, from their cities, from their local communities, they should have a link with those fans, and with the fanbase in their community. So it is very, very important that that continues to be the case.”
They originated from their home towns, but they've been ought and sold many times. The original owners no longer have a claim on them. This reminds me of when Man United fans celebrated raising millions when the club floated on the stock exchange, only to protest vehemently a few years later when the club was bought by the Glazers. If you're going to sell your club to everyone, you don't retain a claim to who subsequently acquires it. There are hundreds of examples of community clubs - football and other sports - up and down the country, from the small to the reasonably big (Bournemouth, I think?). These are the sorts of clubs which need our support and protection. Those that have already been sold can look elsewhere.
For the clubs involved, whether in the Super League or just shut out of it, this is just the devil come to claim his due. Consider the suggested remedies;
"Fans should have a majority say on boards" (so people who paid good money to buy these clubs in commercial good faith should have control over their purchases taken from them), "they should be forced to put the matches on FTA" (what does that do to the TV rights of other sports? Stay on the government's side, or else?), "ban police from controlling the crowds" (again, really? Is public safety only for things the government approves of?)
They are all huge Pandora's boxes, except the boxes are metal, can-shaped and full of worms. Because, ghastly as this plan is, there's not much that a government can do against determined corporations which doesn't make things worse overall. Hence globalisation and its discontents.
(I'm still expecting this to play out like the launch of the PL; the top clubs getting sufficient money and power to satisfy their current needs and any pyramid access being tokenistic in practice. The greedy dozen will always be near the top, and they will be joined by a ever changing cast of rubes and hicks who will do well to survive two years in a row. UEFA will be allowed to stick their name on it, but that's as far as it will go. Because the realpolitik is that big club names with big money will trump everything else, as always.)
Agree with all of this, and particularly admire the elegant mixing of the Pandora's Box/Can of worms metaphor. We are going to end up with a worst of all worlds where if a club is rich enough it gets to qualify for the permanent riches of the Champions league permanently, aren't we? Football is going to lack the bottle to tell them all to go their own way.
Yes, I was saying yesterday that this was ultimately a non-political issue although politicians are free to expostulate. I like Stuart's creative ideas and imagery!
There's a decent shot at arguing why it does have political significance here:
Essentially - what do politicians do about the dominance of big capital in a globalised world? Doesn't answer the question though. (We could always join the EU to have a better bargaining position...)
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Same goes for United.
I don't think so. Where the top clubs and the top players are, there will always be 50,000 fans prepared to pay and watch.
There is a difference between sitting in a capacity stadium full of people with no ties to the club, and sitting in a capacity stadium overflowing with love for their club and a sense of history.
The latter is actually fun.
The difference between going to an Arsenal match and a Spurs match, basically.
I've always thought that the reason various oligarchs from questionable countries bought football clubs was as some sort of money-laundering scam.
Anyway, this is the Cadbury or Coleman's Mustard issue all over again, no?
Britain inventing something, being very good at it, but then selling it onto the highest bidder. Promises are made to the locals - about keeping an office or factory or whatever. But as soon as they can the foreign buyers renege on their promises and take the asset abroad where there are richer pickings to be made.
English fans may have created these clubs. But they are no longer important. The money is made elsewhere. So that is where the clubs are going.
Isn't that more or less it? And if my analysis is correct the British government will do pretty much what it has done in the past ie the square root of fuck all.
A quarter of the leave vote could be categorised as “economically deprived, anti-immigration with monthly household income of less than £2,200 a month. A third of leave supporters were older working class, with an average age of 71.
However, almost half were “affluent eurosceptics” who shared the domestic priorities of the poorer cohort – they wanted further investment in police, the NHS and care workers and “proper, secure work for high-quality domestic production, as well as apprenticeship in real jobs”, says the briefing paper.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Inconsequential?!
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Justin is well worth ignoring on anything related to football. He was on the other day saying how irritating it was that England, Scotland and Wales had qualified for Euro 2021, and that he desperately hoped it won’t happen again.
BREAKING Boris Johnson vows to block plans for Super League 'by the elite, for the elite'
Boris detractors must be having a 'mare' today
Of all the stories that influences red wall voters this is the one and if he manages to stop or even moderate it he will be very popular indeed
Or it may remind people once more that almost every positive thing Johnson does is nicked from Jeremy "ahead of his time" Corbyn. Making the clubs accountable to the fans was yet another terrific policy of his from the glory days.
The "big six" greed machines wouldn't have even comtemplated this move if a Corbyn led Labour government were in power. They'd have known for a fact it couldn't fly.
By contrast, and as per usual, "Boris" is simply seeking to ingratiate.
lol. No one is going to look fondly back and think ‘ahhh, Jeremy Corbyn would have saved English football’
Boris is a populist. He knows it will be extremely popular, stopping this grotesque breakaway.
But failing to stop it having promised to will dent his popularity.
Perhaps this is all about the Overton Window and some form of compromise will be reached afterall? Which allows the clubs to still gain something significant, the PM to claim credit for moderating the changes etc etc
Let's suppose you have a European Super League, and instead of the 5 guest clubs you have something like promotion/relegation, with playoffs, so a maximum of two or three clubs are relegated from the Super League each season, and "relegated" sides have a good chance of not being relegated by winning the playoff against the "promoted" side.
The principle of promotion/relegation would be preserved, but the big clubs would have reduced the risk of them not qualifying each year by a large margin.
Maybe. But I think if the big clubs can keep the players then there's enough TV money out there for them to make this work without compromise.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Same goes for United.
I don't think so. Where the top clubs and the top players are, there will always be 50,000 fans prepared to pay and watch.
There is a difference between sitting in a capacity stadium full of people with no ties to the club, and sitting in a capacity stadium overflowing with love for their club and a sense of history.
The latter is actually fun.
The difference between going to an Arsenal match and a Spurs match, basically.
I was going to mention Highbury and the Emirates by name but I decided to be kind.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.
I've always thought that the reason various oligarchs from questionable countries bought football clubs was as some sort of money-laundering scam.
Anyway, this is the Cadbury or Coleman's Mustard issue all over again, no?
Britain inventing something, being very good at it, but then selling it onto the highest bidder. Promises are made to the locals - about keeping an office or factory or whatever. But as soon as they can the foreign buyers renege on their promises and take the asset abroad where there are richer pickings to be made.
English fans may have created these clubs. But they are no longer important. The money is made elsewhere. So that is where the clubs are going.
Isn't that more or less it? And if my analysis is correct the British government will do pretty much what it has done in the past ie the square root of fuck all.
While making it look like they are doing something but just enough of something that it doesn't change the end result.
Mesut Özil @MesutOzil1088 Kids grow up dreaming to win the World Cup and the Champions League - not any Super League. The enjoyment of big games is that they only happen once or twice a year, not every week. Really hard to understand for all football fans out there...⚽💔
Isn't this the guy who was on 350 grand a week at a certain English club?
suddenly talking about boys in the park, jumpers for goalposts?
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
Yes, removing the top four/six competition at the top of the table will make the season feel completely sterile. If the big six are guaranteed elite European football every season in a closed shop league where they get more money for just showing up than the winner of the PL gets then all they really need to do is not get relegated.
Yes, EPL earnings will crater. TV deals will go thru the floor for a greatly inferior product.
They are casually destroying the best league on the planet. It is tragicomic
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.
If the big six succeed, you don’t want to have been too vocal against them because it risks what future crumbs you might get from the table. But if they fail, then having been a strong voice against will pay off.
🚨 BREAKING: Boris Johnson has announced that he will make sure the European Super League doesn’t go ahead as it stands #mufc #mujournal
If Boris can kill this he wins six terms
Has he really or is this a joke? Nothing on the news about him announcing that.
More details were expected when Dowden makes a Commons statement at about 5pm on Monday.
Speaking on a visit to Gloucestershire, the prime minister said: “I don’t like the look of these proposals, and we’ll be consulted about what we can do.”
The prime minister told reporters: “We are going to look at everything that we can do with the football authorities to make sure that this doesn’t go ahead in the way that it’s currently being proposed. I don’t think that it’s good news for fans, I don’t think it’s good news for football in this country.
“These clubs are not just great global brands – of course they’re great global brands – they’re also clubs that have originated historically from their towns, from their cities, from their local communities, they should have a link with those fans, and with the fanbase in their community. So it is very, very important that that continues to be the case.”
They originated from their home towns, but they've been ought and sold many times. The original owners no longer have a claim on them. This reminds me of when Man United fans celebrated raising millions when the club floated on the stock exchange, only to protest vehemently a few years later when the club was bought by the Glazers. If you're going to sell your club to everyone, you don't retain a claim to who subsequently acquires it. There are hundreds of examples of community clubs - football and other sports - up and down the country, from the small to the reasonably big (Bournemouth, I think?). These are the sorts of clubs which need our support and protection. Those that have already been sold can look elsewhere.
For the clubs involved, whether in the Super League or just shut out of it, this is just the devil come to claim his due. Consider the suggested remedies;
"Fans should have a majority say on boards" (so people who paid good money to buy these clubs in commercial good faith should have control over their purchases taken from them), "they should be forced to put the matches on FTA" (what does that do to the TV rights of other sports? Stay on the government's side, or else?), "ban police from controlling the crowds" (again, really? Is public safety only for things the government approves of?)
They are all huge Pandora's boxes, except the boxes are metal, can-shaped and full of worms. Because, ghastly as this plan is, there's not much that a government can do against determined corporations which doesn't make things worse overall. Hence globalisation and its discontents.
(I'm still expecting this to play out like the launch of the PL; the top clubs getting sufficient money and power to satisfy their current needs and any pyramid access being tokenistic in practice. The greedy dozen will always be near the top, and they will be joined by a ever changing cast of rubes and hicks who will do well to survive two years in a row. UEFA will be allowed to stick their name on it, but that's as far as it will go. Because the realpolitik is that big club names with big money will trump everything else, as always.)
Agree with all of this, and particularly admire the elegant mixing of the Pandora's Box/Can of worms metaphor. We are going to end up with a worst of all worlds where if a club is rich enough it gets to qualify for the permanent riches of the Champions league permanently, aren't we? Football is going to lack the bottle to tell them all to go their own way.
At this stage- after Division 1 became the Premier League, the European Cup became the Champions League, the CL expanded to 16/24/32 clubs, let alone the curent UEFA plans- it's a bit late to complain that the top clubs are pulling up the ladder behind them. It's just making something implicit explicit.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Inconsequential?!
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Would the ex PMs I have listed have bothered themselves with this? You really think that Churchill , Attlee , Macmillan etc would have lowered themselves so far?
Mesut Özil @MesutOzil1088 Kids grow up dreaming to win the World Cup and the Champions League - not any Super League. The enjoyment of big games is that they only happen once or twice a year, not every week. Really hard to understand for all football fans out there...⚽💔
That's a really key point of this. The NLD is a big match because it usually only happens twice a season. Spurs vs Real Madrid is amazing from my perspective as a Spurs fan because it's a rarity, even lately where we've been in and around the top 4, those elite matches are special. When they become a yearly expectation the essence of what makes them special is lost.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
It will decrease significantly if these 6 teams are no longer a part of the offering. But if they can use a blocking majority to stay and the top non ESL member is guaranteed a place in the next ESL I am not sure it will make that much difference. It will replace the Champions League with a different product; not necessarily better but certainly much more lucrative for the ESL members. This will wreck EUFA but it doesn't necessarily do the EPL any great harm.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
I've always thought that the reason various oligarchs from questionable countries bought football clubs was as some sort of money-laundering scam.
Anyway, this is the Cadbury or Coleman's Mustard issue all over again, no?
Britain inventing something, being very good at it, but then selling it onto the highest bidder. Promises are made to the locals - about keeping an office or factory or whatever. But as soon as they can the foreign buyers renege on their promises and take the asset abroad where there are richer pickings to be made.
English fans may have created these clubs. But they are no longer important. The money is made elsewhere. So that is where the clubs are going.
Isn't that more or less it? And if my analysis is correct the British government will do pretty much what it has done in the past ie the square root of fuck all.
In the case of Abramovich I thought that it was an elaborate insurance policy. If he goes down, Chelsea collapses, since most of the money he put in was in the form of loans. So Chelsea is "wired up" to his financial and personal health.
Plus it is a way of buying a certain kind of respectability. Which feeds backs into his business interests.
As someone who has never much liked football and really can't see the appeal it's most entertaining to sit back and watch this self immolation - The money and greed involved in this "sport" has been out of control for years and now it looks like it's going to bring the whole show crashing down. Ironic.
As a lapsed consumer, I fail to see the benefit that the money that has poured into football over the last thirty years has brought me or anyone else who enjoyed watching the game, either in person or on telly. The product has become more expensive and less enjoyable. It may have become, in some narrowly technical way, better, but better technically doesn't mean more enjoyable.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Inconsequential?!
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Would the ex PMs I have listed have bothered themselves with this? You really think that Churchill , Attlee , Macmillan etc would have lowered themselves so far?
Football is much bigger now. A global industry. Billions of viewers
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Inconsequential?!
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Would the ex PMs I have listed have bothered themselves with this? You really think that Churchill , Attlee , Macmillan etc would have lowered themselves so far?
In a heartbeat. You’ve listed three politicians that were far more cynical in realty that we often choose to believe.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
It will decrease significantly if these 6 teams are no longer a part of the offering. But if they can use a blocking majority to stay and the top non ESL member is guaranteed a place in the next ESL I am not sure it will make that much difference. It will replace the Champions League with a different product; not necessarily better but certainly much more lucrative for the ESL members. This will wreak EUFA but it doesn't necessarily do the EPL any great harm.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
But it does do the EPL great harm. Especially when the likely result is that it doesn't matter where the "big 6" clubs finish in the EPL table — all the (guaranteed) money and success is by virtue of participation in the Super League.
In future, why do Arsenal, for example, care where they finish in the Premier League when a huge majority of their global marketing and income will come from the Super League?
I've always thought that the reason various oligarchs from questionable countries bought football clubs was as some sort of money-laundering scam.
Anyway, this is the Cadbury or Coleman's Mustard issue all over again, no?
Britain inventing something, being very good at it, but then selling it onto the highest bidder. Promises are made to the locals - about keeping an office or factory or whatever. But as soon as they can the foreign buyers renege on their promises and take the asset abroad where there are richer pickings to be made.
English fans may have created these clubs. But they are no longer important. The money is made elsewhere. So that is where the clubs are going.
Isn't that more or less it? And if my analysis is correct the British government will do pretty much what it has done in the past ie the square root of fuck all.
BiB - possibly, but there are differences. The value of PL was the style of play and the full stadia. There’s something about a game under the lights at a Goodison Park or Bramall Lane that you can’t recreate elsewhere.
It’s the same with the NFL. I’ve been to games in the US and at Wembley. You just can’t transplant a sport to another country and maintain the same nature.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Inconsequential?!
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Would the ex PMs I have listed have bothered themselves with this? You really think that Churchill , Attlee , Macmillan etc would have lowered themselves so far?
Football is much bigger now. A global industry. Billions of viewers
While everybody in the pub is talking about this, Justin will be wittering about his census form and how that poll with Labour 14 points down still is good news for them.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Inconsequential?!
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Would the ex PMs I have listed have bothered themselves with this? You really think that Churchill , Attlee , Macmillan etc would have lowered themselves so far?
Football is much bigger now. A global industry. Billions of viewers
Bread and circuses. Politicians have to be seen to care.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.
I've always thought that the reason various oligarchs from questionable countries bought football clubs was as some sort of money-laundering scam.
Anyway, this is the Cadbury or Coleman's Mustard issue all over again, no?
Britain inventing something, being very good at it, but then selling it onto the highest bidder. Promises are made to the locals - about keeping an office or factory or whatever. But as soon as they can the foreign buyers renege on their promises and take the asset abroad where there are richer pickings to be made.
English fans may have created these clubs. But they are no longer important. The money is made elsewhere. So that is where the clubs are going.
Isn't that more or less it? And if my analysis is correct the British government will do pretty much what it has done in the past ie the square root of fuck all.
Absolutely.
And the fans are wondering why the clubs are looking elsewhere to try to fund the vast amounts it takes to lay on the banquet of football they are served up every week.
Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906 We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
So effing what.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
If Liverpool loses the Kop it loses its soul. The owners can turn it into a hollowed out franchise if they like, but the history will be gone. And make no mistake, if the likes of Dalglish speak out, they will lose the fans.
Same goes for United.
I don't think so. Where the top clubs and the top players are, there will always be 50,000 fans prepared to pay and watch.
There is a difference between sitting in a capacity stadium full of people with no ties to the club, and sitting in a capacity stadium overflowing with love for their club and a sense of history.
The latter is actually fun.
Its possible to sit in a capacity stadium full of people with ties to the club all over the world, even for a Friendly.
Even for a Friendly fixture the sight and sound of 95,000 fans in the MCG singing You'll Never Walk Alone gives goosebumps and most definitely is fun.
That fun, love and affection for the club comes from its history not just its name and the clubs need to be aware of that.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
It will decrease significantly if these 6 teams are no longer a part of the offering. But if they can use a blocking majority to stay and the top non ESL member is guaranteed a place in the next ESL I am not sure it will make that much difference. It will replace the Champions League with a different product; not necessarily better but certainly much more lucrative for the ESL members. This will wreak EUFA but it doesn't necessarily do the EPL any great harm.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
But it does do the EPL great harm. Especially when the likely result is that it doesn't matter where the "big 6" clubs finish in the EPL table — all the (guaranteed) money and success is by virtue of participation in the Super League.
In future, why do Arsenal, for example, care where they finish in the Premier League when a huge majority of their global marketing and income will come from the Super League?
Quite. Hence they will rest their best players for the EPL. Turning it into a kind of League Cup. Viewership worldwide will switch to the SL (at least at first). Money going into the EPL will nosedive
Everyone gets poorer, the best players in non SL teams depart, the league swiftly declines in all ways. And the big six will accrue undying enmity as they play their sterile meaningless matches in Madrid
It is stupefyingly short sighted idiocy fuelled by greed. It harms football, grievously
Mesut Özil @MesutOzil1088 Kids grow up dreaming to win the World Cup and the Champions League - not any Super League. The enjoyment of big games is that they only happen once or twice a year, not every week. Really hard to understand for all football fans out there...⚽💔
Isn't this the guy who was on 350 grand a week at a certain English club?
suddenly talking about boys in the park, jumpers for goalposts?
Do me a favour sunshine.
He wasn't born earning £350k a week. In fact, he spent considerably more of his life as a kid playing football in the park than he did earning £350k a week. Probably enjoyed doing the former more than the latter as well.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
It will decrease significantly if these 6 teams are no longer a part of the offering. But if they can use a blocking majority to stay and the top non ESL member is guaranteed a place in the next ESL I am not sure it will make that much difference. It will replace the Champions League with a different product; not necessarily better but certainly much more lucrative for the ESL members. This will wreak EUFA but it doesn't necessarily do the EPL any great harm.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
But it does do the EPL great harm. Especially when the likely result is that it doesn't matter where the "big 6" clubs finish in the EPL table — all the (guaranteed) money and success is by virtue of participation in the Super League.
In future, why do Arsenal, for example, care where they finish in the Premier League when a huge majority of their global marketing and income will come from the Super League?
Quite. Hence they will rest their best players for the EPL. Turning it into a kind of League Cup. Viewership worldwide will switch to the SL (at least at first). Money going into the EPL will nosedive
Everyone gets poorer, the best players in non SL teams depart, the league swiftly declines in all ways. And the big six will accrue undying enmity as they play their sterile meaningless matches in Madrid
It is stupefyingly short sighted greed
And of course the Premier League currently pays £100m to the other clubs in the Football League in solidarity payments. Any decrease in the income of the PL impacts all the clubs in the football pyramid.
Another reason why the "big 6" are being unbelievably selfish.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
It will decrease significantly if these 6 teams are no longer a part of the offering. But if they can use a blocking majority to stay and the top non ESL member is guaranteed a place in the next ESL I am not sure it will make that much difference. It will replace the Champions League with a different product; not necessarily better but certainly much more lucrative for the ESL members. This will wreak EUFA but it doesn't necessarily do the EPL any great harm.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
But it does do the EPL great harm. Especially when the likely result is that it doesn't matter where the "big 6" clubs finish in the EPL table — all the (guaranteed) money and success is by virtue of participation in the Super League.
In future, why do Arsenal, for example, care where they finish in the Premier League when a huge majority of their global marketing and income will come from the Super League?
Quite. Hence they will rest their best players for the EPL. Turning it into a kind of League Cup. Viewership worldwide will switch to the SL (at least at first). Money going into the EPL will nosedive
Everyone gets poorer, the best players in non SL teams depart, the league swiftly declines in all ways. And the big six will accrue undying enmity as they play their sterile meaningless matches in Madrid
It is stupefyingly short sighted greed
And of course the Premier League currently pays £100m to the other clubs in the Football League in solidarity payments. Any decrease in the income of the PL impacts all the clubs in the football pyramid.
Another reason why the "big 6" are being unbelievably selfish.
The government should enact primary legislation that enables them to stop this. No ECJ to stand in our way.
Just do it, Boris
If the English clubs withdraw from the SL it collapses immediately
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.
Right. Which is exactly what Johnson has done so far...?
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.
You don’t think a politician like Boris would add to his popularity amongst his new voters by being seen to side with them on football, and try to do something about it?
I would be delighted to see anything which undermines football and reduces the widespread obsession with it. In reality , millions could not give a toss. Happy to see a few top teams go bust under a mountain of debt. Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
I note you carefully left out Wilson*, presumably out of embarrassment at his famous proclamation that "England only win the World Cup when Labour are in power".
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
I made no attempt to include Wilson - who was a genuine football fan - as is Major.Both would be likely to comment - though I doubt it would have gone beyond that.
Politicians getting involved in issues that a huge proportion of the population cares about? Shock horror.
I really do not believe it to be an electorally salient issue.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
It will decrease significantly if these 6 teams are no longer a part of the offering. But if they can use a blocking majority to stay and the top non ESL member is guaranteed a place in the next ESL I am not sure it will make that much difference. It will replace the Champions League with a different product; not necessarily better but certainly much more lucrative for the ESL members. This will wreak EUFA but it doesn't necessarily do the EPL any great harm.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
But it does do the EPL great harm. Especially when the likely result is that it doesn't matter where the "big 6" clubs finish in the EPL table — all the (guaranteed) money and success is by virtue of participation in the Super League.
In future, why do Arsenal, for example, care where they finish in the Premier League when a huge majority of their global marketing and income will come from the Super League?
Quite. Hence they will rest their best players for the EPL. Turning it into a kind of League Cup. Viewership worldwide will switch to the SL (at least at first). Money going into the EPL will nosedive
Everyone gets poorer, the best players in non SL teams depart, the league swiftly declines in all ways. And the big six will accrue undying enmity as they play their sterile meaningless matches in Madrid
It is stupefyingly short sighted greed
And of course the Premier League currently pays £100m to the other clubs in the Football League in solidarity payments. Any decrease in the income of the PL impacts all the clubs in the football pyramid.
Another reason why the "big 6" are being unbelievably selfish.
Absolutely agreed on this and this is also another reason why the Premier League, the Football Association and the Football League have no choice that they can't afford to expel the Big 6 and the billions they bring in.
Hopefully a compromise can be reached, like happened when the PL itself was launched.
Speaking with my legal hat on for a moment, I don't think the broadcasters will be able to sue the individual clubs, only the leagues.
The clubs will be able to argue that they still want to play in their respective domestic leagues and it is the leagues that have kicked them out.
Would the Premier League really expel the 6 clubs that bring in probably 90% of their revenue? I just don't see it.
UEFA would fight this with all they've got because this kills their golden goose (the Champions League) but the Premier League surely have no alternative but to defer to the big 6 over UEFA.
But the golden goose has already flown the nest. There would be little incentive for the super 6 to field full strength or even half strength sides in the domestic league. League position means nothing financially, there’s no concept of needing to finish high enough to qualify for Europe. And there can only be one champion. So it’s B Sides in the domestic league from now on. Which massively degrades the value of the tv contacts.
Doesn't change the fact that the Premier League having the top clubs and their fans, even with B sides, is a much better product than a Premier League without the top clubs.
Keep the top 6 and the Premier League is devalued but still has the fans of the top clubs, expel the top 6 (which looks like they can't do as there's a blocking minority there preventing a 75% supermajority vote anyway) and the Premier League becomes a glorified "Championship".
The top 6 are more than half of the value of the product. Threatening to kick them out is an empty threat.
The only way to avoid this would have been to prevent the big money owners from buying the clubs in the first place.
Its not an empty threat if the EPL already know that their actions are going to destroy the value of the league anyway. They have nothing to lose.
The value of the league won't be "destroyed" that is hyperbolic nonsense. If this goes ahead then the Super League teams will play 18 to 25 Super League games in addition to their League fixtures. The new Champions League proposal would have had teams playing upto 20 fixtures (without counting any qualification games if any were needed). So we're talking 5 extra midweek fixtures.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
Of course they are. The PL won't be "destroyed" by the Super League but it will be seriously devalued as a sporting institution.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
I know which you'd pick. I know which I'd pick, I'd pick for this not to happen.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
It's likely that PL revenues will DECREASE as a result of this, not INCREASE.
That's not the question the minor 14 need to face. They don't have a choice of stopping this or not stopping this.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
Not it isn't. The choice is whether financially it is better to accept mediocrity in a seriously diminished league with the big 6 or to maintain sporting integrity. I'm not sure the answer to that question is obvious.
The Premier League makes its billions from around the globe. If they cut out the big 6 that will leave a gaping hole in their finances which will relegate the Premier League to the status of the Championship around the globe.
You don't get it. The Super League in itself regulates the Premier league to the status of the Championship. Whether or not the "big 6" remain members is not relevant to that. It happens anyway.
No it doesn't since the big clubs will still be playing. The billions of supporters around the globe will want to see their club win the Premier League, just as the existance of the Champions League hasn't prevented them from wanting to win the Premier League to date already.
Comments
2) Residual expectation that the big club wins - Leicester will have to have been 'big' for some time before this is overcome.
3) The final is being played in London (as always) - I don't have the stats to hand, but ISTR London teams do disproportionately well at Wembley.
Each franchise owns half a dozen or more minor league teams of varying standards through which prospects are moved.
Can see a "farm" system evolving. We already have a proto one.
Chelsea current form is better to be fair but not by much.
Remember when the CL was qualifying, then two group stages, then knock out.
"Fans should have a majority say on boards" (so people who paid good money to buy these clubs in commercial good faith should have control over their purchases taken from them), "they should be forced to put the matches on FTA" (what does that do to the TV rights of other sports? Stay on the government's side, or else?), "ban police from controlling the crowds" (again, really? Is public safety only for things the government approves of?)
They are all huge Pandora's boxes, except the boxes are metal, can-shaped and full of worms. Because, ghastly as this plan is, there's not much that a government can do against determined corporations which doesn't make things worse overall. Hence globalisation and its discontents.
(I'm still expecting this to play out like the launch of the PL; the top clubs getting sufficient money and power to satisfy their current needs and any pyramid access being tokenistic in practice. The greedy dozen will always be near the top, and they will be joined by a ever changing cast of rubes and hicks who will do well to survive two years in a row. UEFA will be allowed to stick their name on it, but that's as far as it will go. Because the realpolitik is that big club names with big money will trump everything else, as always.)
Spion Kop 1906
@SpionKop1906
We, along with other groups involved in flags, will be removing our flags from The Kop. We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game.
https://twitter.com/anderherrera/status/1384093651702140937?s=21
Mike Ashley
@MoneyMikeAshley
Proud to announce Sports Direct will be among 6 founding stores of the high street Super League alongside Shoe Zone, Fat Face, Clinton Cards, Wilko, and Mountain Warehouse.
#nufc #theESL #nufctakeover
We are going to end up with a worst of all worlds where if a club is rich enough it gets to qualify for the permanent riches of the Champions league permanently, aren't we? Football is going to lack the bottle to tell them all to go their own way.
The Premier League will have a lot to lose if they lose the big 6 clubs. They would stand to lose billions of supporters worldwide. Both Liverpool and Manchester United alone have more than half a billion supporters each worldwide, even Chelsea claim 400 million supporters worldwide. About a quarter of the world's population supports one of the big 6 clubs - and you think the Premier League lose "nothing" by expelling them? They are the golden goose.
This is immoral and repugnant on sporting grounds but lets not pretend that the minor 14 clubs of the Premier League are the ones in a strong position here.
The other PL clubs have a choice between guaranteed future mediocrity, with decreased TV revenues, or decreased TV revenues but potential future success.
I know which one I'd pick.
Those losers aren't paying Mo Salah's salary.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56799755
Utterly demeaning to see senior politicians getting involved in something so inconsequential. I cannot imagine the likes of Baldwin , Chamberlain, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Macmillan, Douglas - Home, Heath , Callaghan interfering in something so trivial.
Fair play if true.
What do other managers think?
Have they been consulted?
Not sure this fits with Klopp's politics for one.
BTW Juventus shares up 10% this morning as are Man U shares on the New York pre-market. That increases the Glazer's interest (81% of $2.5bn) by just over $200m. Anyone who thinks this is some sort of bluff is deceiving themselves.
Same goes for United.
But the minor 14 clubs decision makers, like the big 6 clubs decision makers, will follow the money. Being in the same league as the big 6 brings billions of global supporters engaged in the Premier League, cut away and they lose all that money.
You may not like it, I may not like it, but its reality. The minor 14 are businesses too.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1384083279721033728
"@EmmanuelMacron
We are living the first consequences of basically climate disorders. It's time to rush."
You’re clueless. This is the biggest sport in the world, beloved by billions. The EPL and UCL are the sport’s biggest club competitions. The EPL generates tons of money in the UK and is a significant cultural and literal export
This news is the top trend in just about every country on earth. It has overshadowed COVID-19. It is that big
Boris is right to get involved and if he can scupper the SL he will reap the harvest
Reasons for this are:
1) Let's consider a Liverpool fan from, say, Hunts Cross. It takes him half a hour and £5 to get to Anfield; it takes him an hour and £10 to get to Old Trafford. Actually, there are typically at least half a dozen away matches a year for which the time and financial outlay of getting to and getting a ticket for an away match is, compared to the cost of a home match. This will not apply when the away match is in, say, Madrid.
2) But actually, there are a lot of Liverpool fans not actually from Liverpool. For many Liverpool fans in the south, the times when Liverpool play in the south present easier opportunities to watch their team than travelling to Anfield. Again, this hardly applies in Madrid. (In reality, it will, a bit. But there are far, far more Liverpool fans within 40 miles of London than within 40 miles of Madrid).
3) And actually, even for the Liverpool fan from Hunt's Cross, London isn't that difficult or expensive to get to (compared to, say, Madrid). It is rare to need overnight accommodation for away matches in the UK (though the schedulers will often try to make it so).
They have influence, investors, supporters and power too.
If the choice is break away from the big 6 or continue with the big 6, then continuing with the big 6 brings in billions of pounds to the Premier League of which they get a cut.
The latter is actually fun.
And not a word for how much Thatcher hated the game and its fans?
*Edit: I can see the extra space included after you deleted him and failed to edit the list properly!
Mesut Özil
@MesutOzil1088
Kids grow up dreaming to win the World Cup and the Champions League - not any Super League. The enjoyment of big games is that they only happen once or twice a year, not every week. Really hard to understand for all football fans out there...⚽💔
It’s all about money. ALL about the money
There's a decent shot at arguing why it does have political significance here:
https://go.pardot.com/webmail/509131/671018157/c6b3ba6eb7f1f7122e1db8c788c0a32548f06577393f574ca4ccbf016518b77b
Essentially - what do politicians do about the dominance of big capital in a globalised world? Doesn't answer the question though. (We could always join the EU to have a better bargaining position...)
Anyway, this is the Cadbury or Coleman's Mustard issue all over again, no?
Britain inventing something, being very good at it, but then selling it onto the highest bidder. Promises are made to the locals - about keeping an office or factory or whatever. But as soon as they can the foreign buyers renege on their promises and take the asset abroad where there are richer pickings to be made.
English fans may have created these clubs. But they are no longer important. The money is made elsewhere. So that is where the clubs are going.
Isn't that more or less it? And if my analysis is correct the British government will do pretty much what it has done in the past ie the square root of fuck all.
It’s just moronic.
The principle of promotion/relegation would be preserved, but the big clubs would have reduced the risk of them not qualifying each year by a large margin.
Maybe. But I think if the big clubs can keep the players then there's enough TV money out there for them to make this work without compromise.
suddenly talking about boys in the park, jumpers for goalposts?
Do me a favour sunshine.
They are casually destroying the best league on the planet. It is tragicomic
Sometimes you have to just roll the dice.
There are bits of this I really don't like but from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to these clubs and is very similar to what a very similar group did when they formed the EPL. Right now the EPL members not invited are royally pissed but their own cold interest will in my view result in a reconciliation between them and the ESL once it is proven they absolutely mean it.
Plus it is a way of buying a certain kind of respectability. Which feeds backs into his business interests.
If you are over 40, I challenge you to watch this 3 minutes of loveliness and tell me football is better now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCm3bS6wXvk
Football will go on existing. Seeing the edifice of money coming crashing down might even make things better.
In future, why do Arsenal, for example, care where they finish in the Premier League when a huge majority of their global marketing and income will come from the Super League?
It’s the same with the NFL. I’ve been to games in the US and at Wembley. You just can’t transplant a sport to another country and maintain the same nature.
And the fans are wondering why the clubs are looking elsewhere to try to fund the vast amounts it takes to lay on the banquet of football they are served up every week.
Even for a Friendly fixture the sight and sound of 95,000 fans in the MCG singing You'll Never Walk Alone gives goosebumps and most definitely is fun.
That fun, love and affection for the club comes from its history not just its name and the clubs need to be aware of that.
https://youtu.be/5iLL57puZPM?t=248
Everyone gets poorer, the best players in non SL teams depart, the league swiftly declines in all ways. And the big six will accrue undying enmity as they play their sterile meaningless matches in Madrid
It is stupefyingly short sighted idiocy fuelled by greed. It harms football, grievously
Another reason why the "big 6" are being unbelievably selfish.
Just do it, Boris
If the English clubs withdraw from the SL it collapses immediately
Why do we let the young vote?
Asking for government intervention
Hopefully a compromise can be reached, like happened when the PL itself was launched.