Is the European super league back? | United Statement: We remain committed to UEFA

[abundance]

You can’t level something financially by giving massive clubs more money.

THIS.

What Superleague is all about:

the top twenty clubs in the world

who are where they are because they kept most of UEFA's CL prize money and sponsorship marketshare for themselves in the last twenty years,

who now have such massive expenses budget that's predicated on keeping themselves at the top of the CL performance so that they keep getting the most of the whole money in the game,

with many who accumulated so much investment debt in the process of staying at the top of the game,

are now tired of being afraid of not making it to the top of the domestic league and CL knockoffs to sustain the business and end up - beware! - having to downsize and rebuild with less money with a multi-season project.

They are also seeing the opportunity of a huge business growth by globally marketing a flashy new creme de la creme football NBA style league (you know, continental size, with conferences and playoffs).


SO, they simply wanted to cut the middle-man, organize it by themselves with the backing of american investment bank funding, get themselves a founder seat in a F1 teams-style council, istitutionally reap the majority of profit for themselves for the time being,

WHILE nerfing the UEFA competitions for everybody else,

AND keep competing in their national leagues with a peerpetual massive money advantage.



I've got to say, you gotta acknowledge a nice plan when you see one.

Nice plan.



It was in the air since long but what tipped the urgency of going for it was the realization that the Premier League was motoring away from all the other leagues in business revenue, so much that it was on the trajectory of overtaking the CL itself.

So for all the other continental powerhouses, it was either:
- help fix their national league to compete with the PL in a decade or so hopefully - so hard.
- jump ship in a new super duped wildcard access CL all for themselves - so easy.

They all went for it except Bayern because ze germans can't, and PSG because WC ties.
English clubs happily onboarded because with six of them in there they could reap the money and still keep a top league with top notch competivity at the top at home.



That's all there is to that, and quite simply, you can only like that as a fan if you're one of those twenty teams fan.
Or a neutral very casually invested in watching big football games.


Anyway, it's easy to see why they want this, easy to see that it could be a spicy league to watch, but still I'd think there ought to be a better way to reform european football.
To make it cool for the whole continent.

 

[Member 117152]

Real Madrid have never been owned by a dictator. Impossible to take any your post seriously after that.

If it wasn’t for Franco and the Spanish government using them as a tool in the 50’s for sports washing their club wouldn’t be much.

Real were used as a puppet just as Man City and PSG have been in more recent times. It is nothing new.

They obviously have their defenders who come out of the woodwork but then so does Hitler.

They were indeed fascist for a period and yes an arbitration in sport just like City and PSG. When enough time passes some fans willingly forget those links and sweep it under the rug.

 

[carvajal]

THIS.

What Superleague is all about:

the top twenty clubs in the world

who are where they are because they kept most of UEFA's CL prize money and sponsorship marketshare for themselves in the last twenty years,

who now have such massive expenses budget that's predicated on keeping themselves at the top of the CL performance so that they keep getting the most of the whole money in the game,

with many who accumulated so much investment debt in the process of staying at the top of the game,

are now tired of being afraid of not making it to the top of the domestic league and CL knockoffs to sustain the business and end up - beware! - having to downsize and rebuild with less money with a multi-season project.

They are also seeing the opportunity of a huge business growth by globally marketing a flashy new creme de la creme football NBA style league (you know, continental size, with conferences and playoffs).


SO, they simply wanted to cut the middle-man, organize it by themselves with the backing of american investment bank funding, get themselves a founder seat in a F1 teams-style council, istitutionally reap the majority of profit for themselves for the time being,

WHILE nerfing the UEFA competitions for everybody else,

AND keep competing in their national leagues with a peerpetual massive money advantage.



I've got to say, you gotta acknowledge a nice plan when you see one.

Nice plan.



It was in the air since long but what tipped the urgency of going for it was the realization that the Premier League was motoring away from all the other leagues in business revenue, so much that it was on the trajectory of overtaking the CL itself.

So for all the other continental powerhouses, it was either:
- help fix their national league to compete with the PL in a decade or so hopefully - so hard.
- jump ship in a new super duped wildcard access CL all for themselves - so easy.

They all went for it except Bayern because ze germans can't, and PSG because WC ties.
English clubs happily onboarded because with six of them in there they could reap the money and still keep a top league with top notch competivity at the top at home.



That's all there is to that, and quite simply, you can only like that as a fan if you're one of those twenty teams fan.
Or a neutral very casually invested in watching big football games.


Anyway, it's easy to see why they want this, easy to see that it could be a spicy league to watch, but still I'd think there ought to be a better way to reform european football.
To make it cool for the whole continent.

European competitions are weak enough as it is. We used to have Champions League, a strong UEFA and a good Cup Winners Cup.
Right now the Europa league is of no interest to anyone and is based on what it recycles from the champions league.
Top teams see it as a disgrace and many others see it as a nuisance that affects their weekly performance.

Economically it does not pay off either. Clubs have been complaining for years about the money they receive from UEFA.
The new model is more global and promises more money in an era when many teams are loss-making.
The leagues themselves indicate that we are in the era of super teams.

Now forgetting the big leagues, think of Slavia Prague, Copenhagen, Olympiakos, Steaua, Feyenoord, etc....(Those teams that are not in the top 20, but are classics in Europe).
What is their yearly passage through Europe? Play two or three Champions League qualifiers, advance to the Europa league and play a couple of rounds?
This system assures them by what they say 14 games, I understand that a group of 8 with more decent teams and more income.
It is more feasible that someone in one of those countries is willing to invest in those teams and keep more level players in the competition itself.
In those minor leagues surely the players that are worth something are leaving younger and younger.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

If it wasn’t for Franco and the Spanish government using them as a tool in the 50’s for sports washing their club wouldn’t be much.

So that's an "I got caught lying my ass off so I will retreat to much vaguer claims" then.

 

[Member 117152]

So that's an "I got caught lying my ass off so I will retreat to much vaguer claims" then.

“In the wake of the Spanish Civil War, General Franco used Real Madrid as a symbol in his campaign to build a homogenous Spain and display dominance over Basque, Catalan, and Galician culture.

Securing the world’s best players such as Di Stefano and Puskás saw Real Madrid dominate football for decades. Real’s role as a soft power weapon was exemplified when Fernando Maria Castiella (Foreign Minister 1957-69) described them as “The best embassy we ever had” (Kelly, 2019, N.P).

Notably the regime tried emulating Real Madrid’s success at international level by awarding Di Stefano (Argentinian), Puskás (Hungarian), and Santamaria (Uruguayan) Spanish citizenship to represent the national side. Whilst Spain never dominated international football in this period, they did carry on the trend of dictatorships getting to host tournaments. Hosting the European Nation’s Cup in 1964, which they, perhaps unsurprisingly, won.”

I know Madrid fans have short memories so maybe read some history books… Time didn’t start in 2008 when City got taken over last time I checked.

 

[giorno]

Franco did use our image, which ended up souring the relationship with Santiago Bernabeu iirc, who hated the club being used by anyone like that. Franco also only started doing so after we started winning European cups - and he never had anything to do with the club directly. He was never even a club member. This was a case of a dictator latching on to the image of a highly successfull club, and the club being unable to prevent it, because A) it was a dictator and B) the dictator never actually tried involving himself with the club directly

 

[B. Munich]

I think the ESL is the answer to the growing number of take overs in the EPL.
No traditionally run club, be it Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juve or Bayern, can compete with money loaded sugar daddy and oil state clubs, which just don't have to adhere to the basic financial principals. UEFA not enforcing FFP doesn't help either.

PSG buying Neymar and Mbappé in the same year for 400 million Euros, paying Mbappé more than the whole squad of a decent Bundesliga side costs, Chelsea spending over 600 million Euros in one year, more than Bundesliga. La Liga, Ligue 1 and Serie A together in the winter transfer window alone. Newcastle is just starting to splash out the cash, soon United will join the oil clubs, maybe Liverpool soon after.

What alternatives traditional, continental clubs have to stay competitive?
Barcelona tried to play along by paying ridiculous money to just keep Messi and almost bankrupted their club. Bayern tries to stay competitive with smart transfers and their advantage in the market of homegrown German players. However, in the long run it's a battle we can't win. Which of the big and much hyped Bundesliga talents/stars joined Bayern in the last years? None!
Havertz to Chelsea, Sancho to United, Haaland to City, De Bruyne to City, Sané to City. We only got him after he has torn his ACL and Pep wanted to get rid.
Bayern getting the best talent in the Bundesliga is urban myth of the past.

Thus, even if I don't like an ESL I think it's the only chance for many European powerhouses without infinite budgets to stay competitive.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I know Madrid fans have short memories so maybe read some history books… Time didn’t start in 2008 when City got taken over last time I checked.

You should read books on how to use the English language. Your original statement was that Real Madrid were "owned" by a dictator. That is not even remotely true.

Notably the regime tried emulating Real Madrid’s success at international level by awarding Di Stefano (Argentinian), Puskás (Hungarian), and Santamaria (Uruguayan) Spanish citizenship to represent the national side. Whilst Spain never dominated international football in this period, they did carry on the trend of dictatorships getting to host tournaments. Hosting the European Nation’s Cup in 1964, which they, perhaps unsurprisingly, won.”

László Kubala joined Barcelona in 1951 and was given Spanish citizenship soon after. They even made a propaganda movie starring him.

Francisco Franco, owner of Barcelona FC. Apparently.

 

[Wumminator]

The ESL was an inevitability as soon as Chelsea were taken over. I don’t even know why we fight it. It’s no less unfair than football at the moment.

 

[Redlyn]

The planned ESL would replace both domestic league and champions league for it's participants? I am not clear on the proposed format.

 

[carvajal]

The planned ESL would replace both domestic league and champions league for it's participants? I am not clear on the proposed format.

Only the champions league

 

[B. Munich]

Only the champions league

Still unclear about the format. A 20 clubs ESL would mean 38 matches. Thus the clubs participating can't also play in their national leagues.
However, if there is no CL and no cup games there will be only 38 matches to play.

 

[carvajal]

Still unclear about the format. A 20 clubs ESL would mean 38 matches. Thus the clubs participating can't also play in their national leagues.
However, if there is no CL and no cup games there will be only 38 matches to play.

In the last statement they said that they were assuring 14 games, so I assumed that there would be two groups of 8, home and away. I imagine that from there there would be some kind of playoff between the top four or eight.
I guess that until they have the final resolution no more will be known.

 

[SirReginald]

Still unclear about the format. A 20 clubs ESL would mean 38 matches. Thus the clubs participating can't also play in their national leagues.
However, if there is no CL and no cup games there will be only 38 matches to play.

Yeah I just don’t see English teams participating in that if it meant leaving the money of the Premier League. They literally just signed off a £500 mil deal with EA. Super League won’t pull that kind of money.

 

[B. Munich]

In the last statement they said that they were assuring 14 games, so I assumed that there would be two groups of 8, home and away. I imagine that from there there would be some kind of playoff between the top four or eight.
I guess that until they have the final resolution no more will be known.

More (boring) group games and less knock out matches. Boring especially towards the end as the most of the teams will have either already secured their place in playoffs or can't get their anymore.

I can't see this format being attractive. It will be 14 + 2 QF + 2SF +final a maximum of 19 matches compared to a maximum of 13 games in the current CL format.

Too many to participate in national leagues on top.

While I'm am open for an alternative to counter the sugar daddy and oil money flooding EPL clubs, I can't see this format working out.

If all 16 get to the knock out stages, the group games would actually be almost meaningless. They will just determine who plays who instead of a draw.

 

[cyberman]

Last night was a shit round of games.
Oh I can’t wait for more in a competition that has no history or prestige…

 

[Dorris]

Fans of big European clubs claiming the Super League is the only way to make things fair is laughable. The reason the Premier League is so popular is because of its even distribution of funds, if these clubs hadn’t taken the piss the last few decades and taken all the money from their own leagues they might have a more competitive competition to sell. The PL has been ran properly for 30 years and is now reaping the rewards. Oil money is irrelevant. Take City out of our league and it affects nothing.

 

[oates]

Fans of big European clubs claiming the Super League is the only way to make things fair is laughable. The reason the Premier League is so popular is because of its even distribution of funds, if these clubs hadn’t taken the piss the last few decades and taken all the money from their own leagues they might have a more competitive competition to sell. The PL has been ran properly for 30 years and is now reaping the rewards. Oil money is irrelevant. Take City out of our league and it affects nothing.

I agree, but is there a way to have these clubs 'buy' their way out of the PL? They've enjoyed the TV money, the attention, the marketing etc of the PL to help make money, merchandising, advertising their own individual brands as well as receiving cash? Somehow I doubt anyone put it in a contract as such but who knows?

 

[adexkola]

The reason the Premier League is so popular is because of its even distribution of funds

Sky should run seminars on effective propaganda

 

[carvajal]

More (boring) group games and less knock out matches. Boring especially towards the end as the most of the teams will have either already secured their place in playoffs or can't get their anymore.

I can't see this format being attractive. It will be 14 + 2 QF + 2SF +final a maximum of 19 matches compared to a maximum of 13 games in the current CL format.

Too many to participate in national leagues on top.

While I'm am open for an alternative to counter the sugar daddy and oil money flooding EPL clubs, I can't see this format working out.

If all 16 get to the knock out stages, the group games would actually be almost meaningless. They will just determine who plays who instead of a draw.

You are right, they will have to perfect the competition system to make it attractive to the end.
Maybe three groups of eight, choosing the two best third places? And thus keep the fourth and fifth with options, as well as relegation, to keep in suspense both the fifth, sixth and seventh, always assuming groups of 8.
In any case, it also happens in the Champions League, where often the sixth and fifth games are quite irrelevant.

 

[giorno]

If Manchester United "bought" itself out of the PL the value of the league would get slashed by half immediately. The PL doesn't make money because of even distribution of tv money, it makes it primarily off the back of Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, and nowadays City and Spurs as well i guess. Domestically? Sure, the smaller clubs matter(but they *always* did. Money distribution never was truly relevant here). Internationally? Nope. International tv deals is where the PL really blows the other leagues out of the water

 

[Ragnar123]

Fans of big European clubs claiming the Super League is the only way to make things fair is laughable. The reason the Premier League is so popular is because of its even distribution of funds, if these clubs hadn’t taken the piss the last few decades and taken all the money from their own leagues they might have a more competitive competition to sell. The PL has been ran properly for 30 years and is now reaping the rewards. Oil money is irrelevant. Take City out of our league and it affects nothing.

You don't get the point. It's not about popularity or even your tv money. It's about PL being a lair for money laundering, sport washing or simply having fun without any ristrictions or rules. European clubs, who earn their money through fans and sponsors cannot compete with billionaire toys who can spend at will. That's the problem, if one PL team spends more than all european leagues combined. Chelsea couldn't do it because of popularity or tv money. They could do it, because they are a billionaire's toy again.
So please, stop talking about unfair tv distribution. That's neither the reason here, nor is it true for that matter. The PL started it's boom with Abramovich's and Abu Dhabi's money. Before that, you guys also had "only 3 big teams like spain" with United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

 

[cyberman]

If Manchester United "bought" itself out of the PL the value of the league would get slashed by half immediately. The PL doesn't make money because of even distribution of tv money, it makes it primarily off the back of Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, and nowadays City and Spurs as well i guess. Domestically? Sure, the smaller clubs matter(but they *always* did. Money distribution never was truly relevant here). Internationally? Nope. International tv deals is where the PL really blows the other leagues out of the water

The competition to those big clubs matter. You tune in every week to see if any of your rivals drop points and they generally do.
A few years ago there was a big 4, then a big 6 and Newcastle seem to be making it a big 7. There’s a lot of so called big games to watch on a weekly basis now that doesn’t include Inited

 

[cyberman]

You don't get the point. It's not about popularity or even your tv money. It's about PL being a lair for money laundering, sport washing or simply having fun without any ristrictions or rules. European clubs, who earn their money through fans and sponsors cannot compete with billionaire toys who can spend at will. That's the problem, if one PL team spends more than all european leagues combined.
So please, stop talking about unfair distribution. That's neither the reason here, nor is it true for that matter. The PL started it's boom with Abramovich's and Abu Dhabi's money. Before that, you guys also had "only 3 big teams like spain" with United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

What billionaires are bankrolling these clubs?
Liverpool, Spurs, United and Arsenal would like to have a word.

 

[Pintu]

What billionaires are bankrolling these clubs?
Liverpool, Spurs, United and Arsenal would like to have a word.

How can you ignore the fact that Abu Dhabi and Abramovic mechanically (and actually directly in the case of Abu Dhabi) did bring with them massive investment from massive brands and TV groups that benefited all PL clubs. United is the only club that was on top of the merchandising game. The others (Spurs, Arsenal and Pool) improved their appeal massively thanks to the publicity that the laundered money gave to the PL.

 

[SinNombre]

What billionaires are bankrolling these clubs?
Liverpool, Spurs, United and Arsenal would like to have a word.

The four of those clubs have won one league title combined over the past 9 seasons. Fergie kept us competitive but you can’t rely on a GOAT manager for that to happen.

The non-oil clubs are struggling to win in England as well.

 

[cyberman]

The four of those clubs have won one league title combined over the past 9 seasons. Fergie kept us competitive but you can’t rely on a GOAT manager for that to happen.

The non-oil clubs are struggling to win in England as well.

That’s the problem, you don’t need to win leagues to be a draw, to have a huge contribution to the league. That’s where the other clubs fell down.
City aren’t even attracting new fans with their success while other grow so it’s obviously more than my billionaire buys all the players and we win all the trophies?
Lectured by a Barca fan about no financial restrictions or laws, feck me the audacity of it all

 

[Krakenzero]

You don't get the point. It's not about popularity or even your tv money. It's about PL being a lair for money laundering, sport washing or simply having fun without any ristrictions or rules. European clubs, who earn their money through fans and sponsors cannot compete with billionaire toys who can spend at will. That's the problem, if one PL team spends more than all european leagues combined. Chelsea couldn't do it because of popularity or tv money. They could do it, because they are a billionaire's toy again.
So please, stop talking about unfair tv distribution. That's neither the reason here, nor is it true for that matter. The PL started it's boom with Abramovich's and Abu Dhabi's money. Before that, you guys also had "only 3 big teams like spain" with United, Arsenal and Liverpool.

A PL club is being pursued by breaking financial rules as we speak. I'm confused, where do RBJ fans think their money comes from? It's either A) TV rights from an unfair TV distribution or B) sponsorship deals with banking, financial services, Qatar and Emirates.

BTW, isn't Valencia owned by a billionaire?

 

[giorno]

The competition to those big clubs matter. You tune in every week to see if any of your rivals drop points and they generally do.
A few years ago there was a big 4, then a big 6 and Newcastle seem to be making it a big 7. There’s a lot of so called big games to watch on a weekly basis now that doesn’t include Inited

Sure. That's organic growth, and sure, equal distribution of money helps. But also? The PL used to be a big sort of 3 but really 1 and a half back in the 90s, then Wenger made it a big 2, then Abramovich made it a big 3 and Liverpool briefly got their shit together to make it 4. Then Abu Dhabi happened. Now a potential 7 because of Saudi Arabia?

The fact of the matter is equal distribution of tv money is a sympton of the PL's success, not a cause

 

[cyberman]

Sure. That's organic growth, and sure, equal distribution of money helps. But also? The PL used to be a big sort of 3 but really 1 and a half back in the 90s, then Wenger made it a big 2, then Abramovich made it a big 3 and Liverpool briefly got their shit together to make it 4. Then Abu Dhabi happened. Now a potential 7 because of Saudi Arabia?

The fact of the matter is equal distribution of tv money is a sympton of the PL's success, not a cause

But that constantly changed. It was Blackburn and then Newcastle before Arsenal. How far back are we going?
There never really was a constant big 2/3 in England. It’s only recently when oil states came in, until then investors came here for the money so money surely was the cause for the growth? Unless you’re saying the league wasn’t healthy before big foreign investment? England was getting the largest tv deals long before outside investment came in
For all of that talk, it’s never been big investor v big investor in a title race just yet anyway. These arguments seem premature to me

 

[711]

The fact of the matter is equal distribution of tv money is a sympton of the PL's success, not a cause

It's what the bigger clubs had to promise the smaller clubs to persuade them to leave the FA and join them in a new organisation, no more than that.

As it happens it has been beneficial for the whole league. Other leagues should copy it, and why the smaller clubs in other leagues don't absolutely demand more equal distribution I don't know. Real and Barca can't just play themselves every week, the other league members should grow some balls and demand change.

 

[golden_blunder]

European competitions are weak enough as it is. We used to have Champions League, a strong UEFA and a good Cup Winners Cup.
Right now the Europa league is of no interest to anyone and is based on what it recycles from the champions league.
Top teams see it as a disgrace and many others see it as a nuisance that affects their weekly performance.

Economically it does not pay off either. Clubs have been complaining for years about the money they receive from UEFA.
The new model is more global and promises more money in an era when many teams are loss-making.
The leagues themselves indicate that we are in the era of super teams.

Now forgetting the big leagues, think of Slavia Prague, Copenhagen, Olympiakos, Steaua, Feyenoord, etc....(Those teams that are not in the top 20, but are classics in Europe).
What is their yearly passage through Europe? Play two or three Champions League qualifiers, advance to the Europa league and play a couple of rounds?
This system assures them by what they say 14 games, I understand that a group of 8 with more decent teams and more income.
It is more feasible that someone in one of those countries is willing to invest in those teams and keep more level players in the competition itself.
In those minor leagues surely the players that are worth something are leaving younger and younger.

We need to move away from league structure and back to knock/outs like it was in the 80s, to give more teams a fairer chance of making a bit of cash. League structures are setup to enrich the big teams

 

[Lay]

Last night was a shit round of games.
Oh I can’t wait for more in a competition that has no history or prestige…

Won’t the new UCL format have more games? The new model seems shite and will have 189 games in comparison to the current 125. For all the disdain the ESL is getting, the new UCL format is horrible. I’d rather the ESL version if I had to choose between the two.

 

[giorno]

But that constantly changed. It was Blackburn and then Newcastle before Arsenal. How far back are we going?
There never really was a constant big 2/3 in England. It’s only recently when oil states came in, until then investors came here for the money so money surely was the cause for the growth? Unless you’re saying the league wasn’t healthy before big foreign investment? England was getting the largest tv deals long before outside investment came in
For all of that talk, it’s never been big investor v big investor in a title race just yet anyway. These arguments seem premature to me

England was the first to move towards TV. It was the first to reslly market itself overseas, and did it better than everyone else. Equal distribution of tv money resulted in 1 club winning 8 of the first 10 PL titles. What helped growth here were two things: an enthusiastic domestic fanbase capable and willing to spend - even as their teams weren't in any way shape or form competitive - though i guess the illusion of it might have been enough. And a juggernaut, internationally. Said juggernaut drew more people, which drew more people, which allowed other clubs to benefir from everexpanding markets. Then the sugar daddies came in and took it to another level

Tl:dr. Equal TV money distribution early on was the result of good organization and a far reaching plan, its implementation gave the leg a leg up on the rest, a dominant club winning in Europe turbocharged its growth into drawing in huge foreign investors, said investors took the league to the next level. Rinse and repeat

 

[giorno]

It's what the bigger clubs had to promise the smaller clubs to persuade them to leave the FA and join them in a new organisation, no more than that.

As it happens it has been beneficial for the whole league.

Never said it wasn't. I'm saying it's not the reason for the PL's success. It's a contributor, but a rather small one

Other leagues should copy it, and why the smaller clubs in other leagues don't absolutely demand more equal distribution I don't know. Real and Barca can't just play themselves every week, the other league members should grow some balls and demand change.

Because those leagues would die if they did that now

 

[Dave Smith]

This discussion makes me laugh. The ESL is dead, all that is going on at the moment is a propaganda campaign by Real, Barca and Juve to reduce the punishments they're going to get.

Let's look at some facts:

1) The ECJ is almost certainly going to judge that UEFA and FIFA's set up isn't illegal, keeping with the judgment from the attorney general.

2) English and German teams will not join. PSG won't join either. The Portuguese Big 3 teams likely won't if it'll impact their domestic league owing to the way their fans are spread across the country. Although they will probably rule alternate competitions can be created.

3) After that the mid-market teams e.g. Ajax, PSV, rest of the French teams, Celtic, Rangers, Bruges, Salzburg, Olympiacos, Fenerbache, Galatasaray, Slavia Prague etc will then have to decide whether to leave the money the security provided by UEFA or risk joining the ESL, which they were cut out of in it's first iteration and hand most of the power to RBJ.

I just don't see the ESL getting off the ground or generate enough money without the English and German teams to make the ESL worth the risk.

 

[Camara]

But that constantly changed. It was Blackburn and then Newcastle before Arsenal. How far back are we going?
There never really was a constant big 2/3 in England. It’s only recently when oil states came in, until then investors came here for the money so money surely was the cause for the growth? Unless you’re saying the league wasn’t healthy before big foreign investment? England was getting the largest tv deals long before outside investment came in
For all of that talk, it’s never been big investor v big investor in a title race just yet anyway. These arguments seem premature to me

Blackburn literally did it with sugar daddy money, I'm not saying they didn't deserve it or something, just saying that even that required sugar daddy injection in order to compete for the title.

 

[cyberman]

Blackburn literally did it with sugar daddy money, I'm not saying they didn't deserve it or something, just saying that even that required sugar daddy injection in order to compete for the title.

But what I’m saying is there want a constant top 2/3 for a long time. Even before that Leeds were up there and Everton was a force and hugely successful in late 80s.
I think big money is a problem for a Europe going forward but the entire league is in a healthy state, if not the pyramid itself imo.
I know it sounds weird now but you don’t need huge money to build a successful team and the super teams can only field so many players anyway.
I sat here and watched Barcelona add Suarez to a Messi and Neymar front three and the Naymar scandal still isn’t resolved in court. None of this moral crusading or lamenting money does t ring true for me especially when the presidents in the Spanish big two gets elected because of the world class players they promise the voters who then have to put up guarantees from their own pockets to cover spend.

 

[SuperiorXI]

It was always here, it's called the Premier League. I would be less surprised to see the likes of Barca/RM/Juve invited in the future...

 

[Dorris]

If Manchester United "bought" itself out of the PL the value of the league would get slashed by half immediately. The PL doesn't make money because of even distribution of tv money, it makes it primarily off the back of Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool, and nowadays City and Spurs as well i guess. Domestically? Sure, the smaller clubs matter(but they *always* did. Money distribution never was truly relevant here). Internationally? Nope. International tv deals is where the PL really blows the other leagues out of the water

Exactly, it makes money because there’s a top 6/7, and if a top team has a bad season they’re out of the CL for a year, which fans of other clubs love to see. The top four race is usually the most entertaining aspect of the league every season, and other leagues don’t want that competition, because that means some big clubs might miss out on CL football. You could easily combine a league between La Liga and Serie A and have a competition to more than rival the Premier League to sell across the world, but Barcelona and Madrid won’t go for that, because that would be too much competition for 4 CL spots. And there lies the essence of the problem.