New European Super League
28,527 Views |
446 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Mathguy64
In a world with no salary cap, it's much easier to fall behind in the arms race and just spend spend spend.
I guarantee some of the NFL/MLB/NBA owners would spend themselves into Bolivian if the cba allowed it.
I guarantee some of the NFL/MLB/NBA owners would spend themselves into Bolivian if the cba allowed it.
YouBet said:AustinAg2012 said:
BTW, this is shocking.
The freaking Buffalo Bills are worth $2B. How are the most prestigious clubs on the planet this poorly managed?
Embarrassing.
There is a difference between having debt on the financial sheet and being legitimately under water. Tottenham for example is showing a load of debt because of the stadium construction. Hell TAMU athletics would look just as bad from a debt load perspective.
Yep and debt/worth of a club are considered separate. Pretty sure most American sports teams are worth more than most of the big clubs in the world. Thats because of the how the set up is here.Mathguy64 said:YouBet said:AustinAg2012 said:
BTW, this is shocking.
The freaking Buffalo Bills are worth $2B. How are the most prestigious clubs on the planet this poorly managed?
Embarrassing.
There is a difference between having debt on the financial sheet and being legitimately under water. Tottenham for example is showing a load of debt because of the stadium construction. Hell TAMU athletics would look just as bad from a debt load perspective.
So, this is clearly unsustainable or they would not have tried the Super League. I know fans don't care, but if I'm an owner I'm going to do whatever I need to do to get to the black.
Interesting. I just wasn't aware they were all this far underwater (Spurs not withstanding) considering their popularity.
Interesting. I just wasn't aware they were all this far underwater (Spurs not withstanding) considering their popularity.
It definitely didn't use to be that way, but the transfer fees have gotten so out of hand with the idea that these high fees are the new normal. 20 years ago the record fee was 46m pounds for Zidane. That record stood until 2009 when Ronaldo went for 84m pounds. Over the last decade its become normal for average players to cost you 30-50m pounds. Hell Harry Maguire went for more than almost the same price as Ronaldo. PSG spend 360m on two players in the span of 2 years.
The idea that a very good player is going to cost a club ~80m is ridiculous and thats why the clubs are in so much trouble.
The idea that a very good player is going to cost a club ~80m is ridiculous and thats why the clubs are in so much trouble.
ding, ding, ding... along with the increasing prices most of the big clubs would rather spend on proven talent rather than develop from within because they fear having any type of down period that potentially loses revenue. The irony is that they would still make money even in their off years and if you have a good academy your big buys are typically only for filling in gaps where the academy has missed on certain positions.wangus12 said:
It definitely didn't use to be that way, but the transfer fees have gotten so out of hand with the idea that these high fees are the new normal. 20 years ago the record fee was 46m pounds for Zidane. That record stood until 2009 when Ronaldo went for 84m pounds. Over the last decade its become normal for average players to cost you 30-50m pounds. Hell Harry Maguire went for more than almost the same price as Ronaldo. PSG spend 360m on two players in the span of 2 years.
The idea that a very good player is going to cost a club ~80m is ridiculous and thats why the clubs are in so much trouble.
Side note... Outside of just growing up a fan, I have no idea why any youth prospect (or their parent) would want to sign with Barca or Real's academy because so few of those kids ever actually play for those clubs. If my kid was ever good enough to play pro (highly unlikely) I would be signing him with whatever of his options had the best hit rate on developing academy kids.
Real Madrid's total revenue in 2001 was under $150 million and now (or pre-pandemic I guess) it is over $900 million and thats probably typical. The clubs spend more money on the players because they are generating more of it (generally).wangus12 said:
It definitely didn't use to be that way, but the transfer fees have gotten so out of hand with the idea that these high fees are the new normal. 20 years ago the record fee was 46m pounds for Zidane. That record stood until 2009 when Ronaldo went for 84m pounds. Over the last decade its become normal for average players to cost you 30-50m pounds. Hell Harry Maguire went for more than almost the same price as Ronaldo. PSG spend 360m on two players in the span of 2 years.
The idea that a very good player is going to cost a club ~80m is ridiculous and thats why the clubs are in so much trouble.
So as a percentage of annual revenue, the 46 million pounds they spent on Zidane would be a transfer fee of 276 million pounds today (which would be the highest ever)
While true, much of the debt on that list isn't good debt and plenty of the clubs involved in the Super League have been on the verge of bankruptcy. Many of the clubs have gotten themselves into gigantic financial commitments that never really were quite supported by their revenues, even with the great growth in revenues over the past years.Mathguy64 said:There is a difference between having debt on the financial sheet and being legitimately under water. Tottenham for example is showing a load of debt because of the stadium construction. Hell TAMU athletics would look just as bad from a debt load perspective.YouBet said:BTW, this is shocking.AustinAg2012 said:
The freaking Buffalo Bills are worth $2B. How are the most prestigious clubs on the planet this poorly managed?
Embarrassing.
There's no reason at all that FC Barcelona should be contemplating bankruptcy, even moreso when they get preferential tax treatment from their government. Yet they've been having to do so going back before the pandemic...
These clubs are often not at all run well from a sustainability perspective.
Or even without youth development, you can still be fiscally responsible. Bayern and Leipzig don't have a lot of studs coming from their academies, per se, but they have partnerships with clubs like FC Dallas and NYRB respectively that lead to very cheap transfers for budding prospects. Both also have robust scouting and find free/cheap transfers. Leipzig are overloaded at every position because they'd rather get several 5-10M Euro players at a position. and see who works than spend 40M on one.
I'm convinced the superstars simply aren't worth it.
I'm convinced the superstars simply aren't worth it.
Yeah, I gave up trying to understand transfer rules and "contracts" in international soccer long ago. It's a confusing mess and it sounds like they are going to have to reign in salaries or go under.wangus12 said:
It definitely didn't use to be that way, but the transfer fees have gotten so out of hand with the idea that these high fees are the new normal. 20 years ago the record fee was 46m pounds for Zidane. That record stood until 2009 when Ronaldo went for 84m pounds. Over the last decade its become normal for average players to cost you 30-50m pounds. Hell Harry Maguire went for more than almost the same price as Ronaldo. PSG spend 360m on two players in the span of 2 years.
The idea that a very good player is going to cost a club ~80m is ridiculous and thats why the clubs are in so much trouble.
Our top American "academies" are ahead of theirs.Quote:
Bayern and Leipzig don't have a lot of studs coming from their academies, per se, but they have partnerships with clubs like FC Dallas and NYRB respectively that lead to very cheap transfers for budding prospects.
It also helps that a lot of the top talents in Germany want to play for Bayern so there's rarely a need for them to enter a bidding war for players in other leagues.deadbq03 said:
Or even without youth development, you can still be fiscally responsible. Bayern and Leipzig don't have a lot of studs coming from their academies, per se, but they have partnerships with clubs like FC Dallas and NYRB respectively that lead to very cheap transfers for budding prospects. Both also have robust scouting and find free/cheap transfers. Leipzig are overloaded at every position because they'd rather get several 5-10M Euro players at a position. and see who works than spend 40M on one.
I'm convinced the superstars simply aren't worth it.
Leipzig has a very good scouting dept and is able to identify good buys. But you also notice they seldom buy older players. It's typically young guys that they can develop further. I would they will eventually setup a good academy but with how quickly they have risen from nothing, I imagine an academy was an afterthought.deadbq03 said:
Or even without youth development, you can still be fiscally responsible. Bayern and Leipzig don't have a lot of studs coming from their academies, per se, but they have partnerships with clubs like FC Dallas and NYRB respectively that lead to very cheap transfers for budding prospects. Both also have robust scouting and find free/cheap transfers. Leipzig are overloaded at every position because they'd rather get several 5-10M Euro players at a position. and see who works than spend 40M on one.
I'm convinced the superstars simply aren't worth it.
Bayern cheats the system. They find a way to buy the other German league team's best players on the cheap and then signs guys on free transfers all the time. But for some reason the guys that sign on the free at Bayern don't seem to require as high of contracts or signing bonuses as they require from other teams. There have been rumors for years that their ownership/management have been doing shady deals that are kept off the books as well as contacting players (Lewandowski, Goretzka, Gotze) about FA deals well before their contracts are set to expire.
It's not just the transfer fees; it's the salary of the star players as well.
ManU has 5 players making more than $275K a week and 15 players making $140K per week or more. Total wage bill for ManU in 2020 was $250M for 33 players (including 6 loaned out); by far the most in wages in EPL.
ManU has 5 players making more than $275K a week and 15 players making $140K per week or more. Total wage bill for ManU in 2020 was $250M for 33 players (including 6 loaned out); by far the most in wages in EPL.
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
I think the FA should fine all 6 teams 100mm from future tv revenue and distribute it to the clubs down all levels.
These clubs make way more money now than they did even 15 years ago. So of course its going to filter to the players.
The system can apply extreme extreme amounts of pressure on the big spenders to make risky financial decisions.
Lets say you're Manchester United, the richest club, the highest wages, and you've got say 2 or 3 other teams you're competing against financially in your country. Then suddenly one, two or several of the "lesser" teams start "going for it" and investing in players to make the champions league (and are also not having to spend to compete in Europe yet either). There are only 4 spots (generally). So what do you do, in that situation? If you start missing the champions league, a big part of your revenue streams get ****ed. You basically have to make sure, as the richest club, that you're not one of the one or two big spending teams that's definitely going to be left holding the bag at the end of the domestic league season.
The amount of money difference between a good season and a bad season are way too big. It makes investing very risky, while it also ratchets up the pressure to where you almost have to make those risky moves to stay ahead.
There are really only two solutions to this issue. Spread all of the money around to way more of the have not teams in order to reduce the risk (which reduces the reward as well), or secondly to just try and cut out all the have nots completely. Which is what this was, and IMO, is still the likely eventual destination.
The system can apply extreme extreme amounts of pressure on the big spenders to make risky financial decisions.
Lets say you're Manchester United, the richest club, the highest wages, and you've got say 2 or 3 other teams you're competing against financially in your country. Then suddenly one, two or several of the "lesser" teams start "going for it" and investing in players to make the champions league (and are also not having to spend to compete in Europe yet either). There are only 4 spots (generally). So what do you do, in that situation? If you start missing the champions league, a big part of your revenue streams get ****ed. You basically have to make sure, as the richest club, that you're not one of the one or two big spending teams that's definitely going to be left holding the bag at the end of the domestic league season.
The amount of money difference between a good season and a bad season are way too big. It makes investing very risky, while it also ratchets up the pressure to where you almost have to make those risky moves to stay ahead.
There are really only two solutions to this issue. Spread all of the money around to way more of the have not teams in order to reduce the risk (which reduces the reward as well), or secondly to just try and cut out all the have nots completely. Which is what this was, and IMO, is still the likely eventual destination.
You raise some very good points and I agree with you 100% for EPL. Champions League spots are ultra-competitive there.
But what's the story with La Liga? No one's a threat to the Top 3. Their CL spots are practically rubber-stamped each year. Is it political peen envy driving them to try and outspend each other? An intense desire to win it all, finances be damned? The pressure of having a massive fanbases around the world? Whatever it is, their choices to keep spending have nothing to do with ensuring their revenue streams, their CL spots are virtually guaranteed.
But what's the story with La Liga? No one's a threat to the Top 3. Their CL spots are practically rubber-stamped each year. Is it political peen envy driving them to try and outspend each other? An intense desire to win it all, finances be damned? The pressure of having a massive fanbases around the world? Whatever it is, their choices to keep spending have nothing to do with ensuring their revenue streams, their CL spots are virtually guaranteed.
Exactly. Showing "Debt" without showing their income and total worth is meaningless. That graphic is all about the stickershock.Mathguy64 said:YouBet said:AustinAg2012 said:
BTW, this is shocking.
The freaking Buffalo Bills are worth $2B. How are the most prestigious clubs on the planet this poorly managed?
Embarrassing.
There is a difference between having debt on the financial sheet and being legitimately under water. Tottenham for example is showing a load of debt because of the stadium construction. Hell TAMU athletics would look just as bad from a debt load perspective.
If companies in general can get loans at 3-5% and realize income on their cash at 8-10% then they would be stupid not to have debt.
That post is definitely for the sticker shock but it's not a secret in the soccer world that many of those clubs have very real financial problems.
And of course, a bunch of them owe each other huge transfer payments which is probably a partial reason why they decided to hitch their financial horses together.
And of course, a bunch of them owe each other huge transfer payments which is probably a partial reason why they decided to hitch their financial horses together.
Good post and I agree with a lot of it until the last sentence.JJxvi said:
These clubs make way more money now than they did even 15 years ago. So of course its going to filter to the players.
The system can apply extreme extreme amounts of pressure on the big spenders to make risky financial decisions.
Lets say you're Manchester United, the richest club, the highest wages, and you've got say 2 or 3 other teams you're competing against financially in your country. Then suddenly one, two or several of the "lesser" teams start "going for it" and investing in players to make the champions league (and are also not having to spend to compete in Europe yet either). There are only 4 spots (generally). So what do you do, in that situation? If you start missing the champions league, a big part of your revenue streams get ****ed. You basically have to make sure, as the richest club, that you're not one of the one or two big spending teams that's definitely going to be left holding the bag at the end of the domestic league season.
The amount of money difference between a good season and a bad season are way too big. It makes investing very risky, while it also ratchets up the pressure to where you almost have to make those risky moves to stay ahead.
There are really only two solutions to this issue. Spread all of the money around to way more of the have not teams in order to reduce the risk (which reduces the reward as well), or secondly to just try and cut out all the have nots completely. Which is what this was, and IMO, is still the likely eventual destination.
What makes you think that this is inevitable? Money? Foreign markets?
I don't agree with that, especially after the backlash we saw this week. Those 10-12-14 clubs are huge, but they are not bigger than soccer. The backlash yesterday was universal, from West Ham to Sparta Moscow and everywhere in between. Not to mention you would ultimately have to get cooperation from so many different foreign entities, that have competing interests. I don't see how this idea could ever be workable with zero support from fans, players, governments, associations, hell anyone.
JJxvi said:
There are really only two solutions to this issue. Spread all of the money around to way more of the have not teams in order to reduce the risk (which reduces the reward as well), or secondly to just try and cut out all the have nots completely. Which is what this was, and IMO, is still the likely eventual destination.
So, west ham and Leicester aren't better than Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool, and arsenal this year? I think most people's issue was the no relegation creating a permanent ruling class. Let the "have not's" make a run when they have a roster
Its already happening and has been happening for 30+ years. The formation of the premier league, and other associations going to similar models after that was one example. The formation of the G-14 (and subsequent ECA is another).agsalaska said:Good post and I agree with a lot of it until the last sentence.JJxvi said:
These clubs make way more money now than they did even 15 years ago. So of course its going to filter to the players.
The system can apply extreme extreme amounts of pressure on the big spenders to make risky financial decisions.
Lets say you're Manchester United, the richest club, the highest wages, and you've got say 2 or 3 other teams you're competing against financially in your country. Then suddenly one, two or several of the "lesser" teams start "going for it" and investing in players to make the champions league (and are also not having to spend to compete in Europe yet either). There are only 4 spots (generally). So what do you do, in that situation? If you start missing the champions league, a big part of your revenue streams get ****ed. You basically have to make sure, as the richest club, that you're not one of the one or two big spending teams that's definitely going to be left holding the bag at the end of the domestic league season.
The amount of money difference between a good season and a bad season are way too big. It makes investing very risky, while it also ratchets up the pressure to where you almost have to make those risky moves to stay ahead.
There are really only two solutions to this issue. Spread all of the money around to way more of the have not teams in order to reduce the risk (which reduces the reward as well), or secondly to just try and cut out all the have nots completely. Which is what this was, and IMO, is still the likely eventual destination.
What makes you think that this is inevitable? Money? Foreign markets?
I don't agree with that, especially after the backlash we saw this week. Those 10-12-14 clubs are huge, but they are not bigger than soccer. The backlash yesterday was universal, from West Ham to Sparta Moscow and everywhere in between. Not to mention you would ultimately have to get cooperation from so many different foreign entities, that have competing interests. I don't see how this idea could ever be workable with zero support from fans, players, governments, associations, hell anyone.
This setback means that it will only be the slow creep towards this that will continue for now, rather than than the lurch forward.
I think those are two different things. The Premier League still has relegation to the Football League, and the Champions league is still based on placement in the domestic leagues. And on somewhat of a side note, the slow slide to obscurity of the domestic cups has stopped and seemingly reversed itself in some places with TV deals.JJxvi said:Its already happening and has been happening for 30+ years. The formation of the premier league, and other associations going to similar models after that was one example. This setback means that it will only be the slow creep towards this that will continue for now, rather than than the lurch forward.agsalaska said:Good post and I agree with a lot of it until the last sentence.JJxvi said:
These clubs make way more money now than they did even 15 years ago. So of course its going to filter to the players.
The system can apply extreme extreme amounts of pressure on the big spenders to make risky financial decisions.
Lets say you're Manchester United, the richest club, the highest wages, and you've got say 2 or 3 other teams you're competing against financially in your country. Then suddenly one, two or several of the "lesser" teams start "going for it" and investing in players to make the champions league (and are also not having to spend to compete in Europe yet either). There are only 4 spots (generally). So what do you do, in that situation? If you start missing the champions league, a big part of your revenue streams get ****ed. You basically have to make sure, as the richest club, that you're not one of the one or two big spending teams that's definitely going to be left holding the bag at the end of the domestic league season.
The amount of money difference between a good season and a bad season are way too big. It makes investing very risky, while it also ratchets up the pressure to where you almost have to make those risky moves to stay ahead.
There are really only two solutions to this issue. Spread all of the money around to way more of the have not teams in order to reduce the risk (which reduces the reward as well), or secondly to just try and cut out all the have nots completely. Which is what this was, and IMO, is still the likely eventual destination.
What makes you think that this is inevitable? Money? Foreign markets?
I don't agree with that, especially after the backlash we saw this week. Those 10-12-14 clubs are huge, but they are not bigger than soccer. The backlash yesterday was universal, from West Ham to Sparta Moscow and everywhere in between. Not to mention you would ultimately have to get cooperation from so many different foreign entities, that have competing interests. I don't see how this idea could ever be workable with zero support from fans, players, governments, associations, hell anyone.
What they tried to do is completely different. They tried to essentially eliminate the Chempions League for their own league with no risk of relegation from said league eliminating any chance for a West Ham while taking all the risk away from a ManU. That is as far as I can tell completely unprecedented in European soccer. I don't think it is fair to say that this is a continuation of what we have seen over the last 30 years.
It also can't be overstated that the utter and complete failure of ESL will have an immense affect on any similar restarting again. I mean...who is going to have the balls to propose a similar proposal again after the epic failure the first go around? It's the sort of failure that lives for years. This isn't a situation where the market somewhat received it but it failed due to various shortcomings that, in theory, could be addressed in a new version. This was a complete and utter collapse of a plan in less than 48 hours. Even production companies, the one entity these clubs HAD to get onboard and you'd expect to be onboard were like "Yeah, I don't know about this."
Never say never of course but this was a monumental setback to anyone who wanted to see a truly closed system in European club football.
Never say never of course but this was a monumental setback to anyone who wanted to see a truly closed system in European club football.
100% agree it is a crushing victory that is a setback for years. But the driving forces haven't gone away
What's funny is how their statements evolved (in a very short period of time) to talking about the benefits to the entire football pyramid when they started to feel the backlash.JJxvi said:
100% agree it is a crushing victory that is a setback for years. But the driving forces haven't gone away
As others have observed their marketing and PR approach for this was genuinely terrible, but I wonder how the message could have been different if they'd actually led with the idea of helping the game as a whole financially. We all know that wasn't what they were really trying to do, but I'm curious how they might have tried to spin it.
It would be pretty naive to think "oh once the Glazers and Kroenke are gone its all back to rainbows and flowers for the next 50 years"
They'll probably go back to focus on the cost side now and try for some kind of heavier handed approach to salary caps and spending limits similar to FFP.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,549
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the better way to present it would have been to sell it as a sort of new step up on the pyramid that teams can qualify for and be relegated from. Win your domestic league and next year instead of playing in the EPL, you're in the ESL. No idea how you'd allocate promotions and relegations or how you'd keep the ESL at a static size given the number of feeder leagues and the fact that you can't relegate Chelsea from ESL to Serie A (though that would be an interesting occurrence to further cross-pollenate).fig96 said:What's funny is how their statements evolved (in a very short period of time) to talking about the benefits to the entire football pyramid when they started to feel the backlash.JJxvi said:
100% agree it is a crushing victory that is a setback for years. But the driving forces haven't gone away
As others have observed their marketing and PR approach for this was genuinely terrible, but I wonder how the message could have been different if they'd actually led with the idea of helping the game as a whole financially. We all know that wasn't what they were really trying to do, but I'm curious how they might have tried to spin it.
Then you tout the amount of revenue that will come in because of the league and tout the fact that teams playing get a share but so do all of the constituent leagues who are required to further distribute. Basically the message is that we're making a big trough and everyone gets to feed.
All of that would still get rejected but it would have been a bit better.
If the ESL had the same qualification requirements as the Champions League, it would be a different conversation. There are two goals behind what these clubs have been trying to achieve: 1) create financial security by ensuring the primary revenue stream is guaranteed (franchise model - no relegation); 2) club control of all revenue streams (primarily TV deals) by removing that power from UEFA and FIFA.
I don't think most fans and clubs have a problem with goal #2. Goal #1 will likely never happen now, as it's clear the governments will pass laws to prevent it from happening.
I don't think most fans and clubs have a problem with goal #2. Goal #1 will likely never happen now, as it's clear the governments will pass laws to prevent it from happening.
I don't even think they had to keep qualification the same as CL, they just shot their own foot by making it exclusive and guaranteed.joemeister said:
If the ESL had the same qualification requirements as the Champions League, it would be a different conversation. There are two goals behind what these clubs have been trying to achieve: 1) create financial security by ensuring the primary revenue stream is guaranteed (franchise model - no relegation); 2) club control of all revenue streams (primarily TV deals) by removing that power from UEFA and FIFA.
I don't think most fans and clubs have a problem with goal #2. Goal #1 will likely never happen now, as it's clear the governments will pass laws to prevent it from happening.
I could see a situation in 5-10 years where CL qualification looks very different, allowing more high quality teams to reach the group stage.
And to some extent, I think that should be the case. For every Genk that gets in, there's a Tottenham left out that would've likely smoked them if they got to play in a qualifier. Make qualification paths more rigorous and you're actually providing more marketable games even before group stage starts and then obviously the group games become higher quality.
I don't think anyone could make a case that the CL process is perfect, but the notion that a representative from every domestic league has a chance to go all the way is sacrosanct. The notion that any club within a country could potentially work their way up to be their country's representative is sacred. This plan violated both of those standards.
Yeah, that would result in better football but could also exacerbate the inequality problem, since smaller leagues/teams would lose out on revenue.
If you look back at the final 8 in 1993 Champions League (first year of "Champions League" era) you had teams from:
Scotland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Russia, Italy, Portugal
To me that is so much more interesting than the same 6-8 teams in the mix every year, but not sure how you get back to that.
I think there are ~30 European countries in Champions League but hard to imagine anyone outside of the top 5 leagues winning it now.
If I were dictator I'd go back to a tournament with just the champions of each league to help re-balance the money towards smaller leagues and clubs, but I realize there is a 0% chance of that happening now.
If you look back at the final 8 in 1993 Champions League (first year of "Champions League" era) you had teams from:
Scotland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Russia, Italy, Portugal
To me that is so much more interesting than the same 6-8 teams in the mix every year, but not sure how you get back to that.
I think there are ~30 European countries in Champions League but hard to imagine anyone outside of the top 5 leagues winning it now.
If I were dictator I'd go back to a tournament with just the champions of each league to help re-balance the money towards smaller leagues and clubs, but I realize there is a 0% chance of that happening now.
Thread derail but I can't help but think about the somewhat analogous college football debate here. IOW, the ongoing topic of the top football schools bailing on the NCAA and forming their own league outside of their jurisdiction.
Featured Stories
See All
10:14
23h ago
7.3k
Zach Clemence leads Texas A&M's 3-point barrage vs. South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: Texas A&M 92, South Carolina 69
by Luke Evangelist
5:03
23h ago
1.8k
Game Highlights: Texas A&M 92, South Carolina 69
by Reece Nygren
9:44
2d ago
2.8k
Shane Sdao's injury changed his perspective on baseball and life
by Ryan Brauninger