European Super League

Jadentheman

Jadentheman

Active member
Luftstalag14 said:
TV/broadcast-wise the Spanish clubs are not making the most money in Europe, the English clubs are. Sure we have made a lot of high-profile transfer blunders and wasted a lot of money as a result, cutting our revenue is not the answer, more prudent planning, analysis and no panic buying is.

From a transfer perspective, I doubt more broadcast money to lower level La Liga clubs will help them hold on to their top players, they will still be enticed to move to bigger clubs nevertheless.
Click to expand...

PL is where the most money is, even during La Liga's dominant run in Europe, PL still brought in the most revenue. Coincidentally it's the PL and lower English clubs that got the most angry. I wonder why?


UEFA also trying their best to show their love to English clubs even after this fiasco.
 
Luftstalag14

Luftstalag14

Culé de Celestial Empire
Mistyoptic said:
I can appreciate all of this, but at the same time, don't you think that Barca and Madrid have created that situation themselves? We've cannibalised and monopolised the league to such an extent, that it's almost impossible for other genuinely competitive sides to grow. Sevilla and Valencia have both been plundered to a ludicrous extent over the years. In England, there's more parity because the top clubs are forced to share what they have with other hungry, competitive sides. Yes, the competitiveness of the PL is a slight marketing illusion - it's not as good as Sky/BT likes to pretend - but vs La Liga the difference is night and day. And the only people to blame for that are Barca and Madrid. We could have had a competitive league, but there's two clubs at the head of the table instead of six or seven.
Click to expand...

What do you mean that in England the top clubs are forced to share? Share what? TV/broadcast money you mean? If so, they are NOT sharing, everybody in England is getting more because the pie is much bigger.

Sevilla and Valencia are being plundered by Barca and Real Madrid? Yes (the same way the big 6 in England plunder the other 14), but not because they are getting less TV money, rather it is because they don't have competent billionaires pumping a lot of money into those clubs and managing them competently. Sevilla is actually not doing too bad at all. If La Liga is as appealing as the EPL (due to factors like history, its huge marketability and the accessibility of the English language etc.), there would be more billionaires buying up these clubs and beefing them up.
 
Luftstalag14

Luftstalag14

Culé de Celestial Empire
stb_1 said:
Purely your opinion. My opinon is more rich investors would come in if there is more income, bringing their wealth and boosting the league.
Click to expand...

TV/broadcast money is a minority portion of the overall revenue of a club. I don't think the reason why some La Liga clubs have not attracted the type of billionaire investors like the English ones have is because they are getting less TV money.

If Barca and Real Madrid and Atletico etc. are stronger, more competitive (against clubs from other leagues), the overall TV deal will be much bigger and the overall TV/broadcast pie for everybody will be much bigger, and everyone will get a bigger slice.
 
Yannik

Yannik

Senior Member
Luftstalag14 said:
Honestly 50+1 is not the answer. Even in Germany it is showing cracks with even the likes of Bayern wanting to end/relax it to encourage more investment from outside investors, I don?t see the whole of Europe adopting it. Too late and too impractical, at least on the top level. Billionaires and millionaires etc. will not be forced to give up their control of the clubs they own. 50+1 ensures members of the club, or the local fans mostly have the biggest say in the club matters and the direction the club is heading, which is great. However for this reason it discourages outside investments, as few people want to invest in a club and have little to no say/power in the end. Let?s be honest, the biggest reason why people invest in football clubs is not because they are fans and love the club, it is because they see potential in the club and want to make money off of it. Even the likes of Hopp who truly love their club are being opposed, and we saw the saga at TSV 1860, I don?t think there will be many investors who will be willing to pump money into clubs where they have no control in how things are run etc. if the goal is to prevent further commercializing football, especially football on the lower and grassroot level, it might work. However the gap between the rich (clubs that are already in the hands of billionaires and millionaires and will have to be exempt from 50+1) and the poor (the rest) will be even wider, I think.
Click to expand...

50+1 either works when everyone has it (and then its a dream). Or it doesnt work when only one has it. That's why Bayern proposed relaxing it. They dont dislike it, they just feel like if noone else does it, it's self harm.
But now another league start considering it, and thats when its effectiveness starts to drastically increase. And its not just any league, it's the Premier League which has been our clubs biggest threat on the market. That's huge. The other top 5 leagues not having 50+1 is not that dramatic, because at least they dont beat us 3 times on our TV or sponsor income and there arent many scares of being financially outclassed in the future.
And in the PLs case, for them there really shouldnt be any scare about financial regress at all. Even with 50+1, they are still comfortably the richest and highest earning league..

But yes, the big question to a 50+1 introduction in England would be: What happens to the clubs that already have owners, aka all clubs in the first division? Thats why I said "IF it is correctly introduced.." because simply disallowing all small clubs to get an owner if they havent had one yet, while not depreiving the likes of City/Chelsea etc of theirs, then that idea suffers from the same shortcomings as the FFP. Brits will quickly hate the fuck out of 50+1 if they mess up a hardline introduction of it.
 
Last edited:
Luftstalag14

Luftstalag14

Culé de Celestial Empire
Yannik said:
50+1 either works when everyone has it (and then its a dream). Or it doesnt work when only one has it. That's why Bayern proposed relaxing it. They dont dislike it, they just feel like if noone else does it, it's self harm.
But now another league start considering it, and thats when its effectiveness starts to drastically increase. And its not just any league, it's the Premier League which has been our clubs biggest threat on the market. That's huge. The other top 5 leagues not having 50+1 is not that dramatic, because at least they dont beat us 3 times on our TV or sponsor income and there arent many scares of being financially outclassed in the future.
And in the PLs case, for them there really shouldnt be any scare about financial regress at all. Even with 50+1, they are still comfortably the richest and highest earning league..

But yes, the big question to a 50+1 introduction in England would be: What happens to the clubs that already have owners, aka all clubs in the first division? Thats why I said "IF it is correctly introduced.." because simply disallowing all small clubs to get an owner if they havent had one yet, while not depreiving the likes of City/Chelsea etc of theirs, then that idea suffers from the same shortcomings as the FFP. Brits will quickly hate the fuck out of 50+1 if they mess up a hardline introduction of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that’s why I think it is too late and impractical to introduce it at this point. The last thing people want is to have a rule that exclusively applies to/undermines the underprivileged and exempts the rich.

I don’t know how they can throw out the owners, regardless of club ownership structure. Even if they could do it, I don’t know if they want to do it, because in the case of the top clubs, booting out those billionaires and thus depriving those clubs of their huge money and resources might cripple those clubs, which their fans and the EPL might not want to see.
 
Devils

Devils

Senior Member
UEFA saying sanctions will come for the 12 clubs who participated in it.

A sanction with big financial implications would probably be the end of FC Barcelona.

Would be stunning. Can't wait to see it happen.

:wow:
 
Jadentheman

Jadentheman

Active member
Devils said:
UEFA saying sanctions will come for the 12 clubs who participated in it.

A sanction with big financial implications would probably be the end of FC Barcelona.

Would be stunning. Can't wait to see it happen.

:wow:
Click to expand...


I wonder if the english fans will moan and groan about this?
 
Luftstalag14

Luftstalag14

Culé de Celestial Empire
If UEFA is smart, they will do nothing. Sanctions will only serve to alienate clubs that wanted to leave in the first place. The uprise failed this time, they will keep going at it.
 
Givenchy

Givenchy

Senior Member
Devils said:
UEFA saying sanctions will come for the 12 clubs who participated in it.

A sanction with big financial implications would probably be the end of FC Barcelona.

Would be stunning. Can't wait to see it happen.

:wow:
Click to expand...

it'll be a slap on the wrist, what exactly can UEFA do? if it had been 2 or 3 clubs involved then sure but all of Europe's elite (minus PSG/Bayern) was involved :lol:

ban them for 1 CL campaign? just weakens the CL more
financial penalties? after the pandemic, this just puts the elite clubs in even more debt which will have a knock on effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Home of Barca Fans

Top