YouBet said:

---

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.

---

Yep, without a doubt. I can see both sides.

If the CFP expanded to 8, it would really stink for A&M if 6 slots get automatically filled by 5 conferences and a non-P5 team, leaving only 2 open slots.

In reality the SEC could probably field 3 or 4 of the 8 slots every year based on talent.

Serotonin said:

---

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.

---

I agree. I would go back to a much smaller "European Championship Cup" with only champions qualifying. I would also replace the Champions League and Europa League with #1 something similar to this European Super League, maybe with qualification by coefficients over several seasons which would be dominated by the top leagues (but theoretically open to any club that can get its quotient high enough), and #2 a European Second League that was closed to clubs from domestic leagues which were represented in the Super League but maybe allowed a winning team from another country to qualify in to the Super League automatically for one season.

What will be interesting now is to see if Financial Fair Play gets pushed more, and even by these larger clubs.

The NFL is so successful because of the caps on spending for each team. These larger clubs need the cap so that they can protect themselves from having to keep up with the large spending.

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

There's definitely some parallels, but we've really already got two defacto divisions within college football with the 5 majors and everyone else.

Formalizing that into a separate entity isn't really a huge stretch, unless they were to cherrypick only certain teams from the big conferences to form that league and only allow those teams into the playoff.

Aston94 said:

---

What will be interesting now is to see if Financial Fair Play gets pushed more, and even by these larger clubs.

The NFL is so successful because of the caps on spending for each team. These larger clubs need the cap so that they can protect themselves from having to keep up with the large spending.

---

Yeah, thats what I think will be the focus. FFP was always "big club" friendly concept. Personally I think its just as much of an anti-competitive idea as ESL. It accomplishes some of their goals perfectly if it is implemented with real teeth.

If Manchester United is allowed to spend no more than $900 million because they make $900 million in a year, that is great. Especially great if that same rule makes it so that Leeds United can only spend $100 million to try and compete with them.

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

It's a very good analogy. College sports are just as decentralized in terms of governance and economics as UEFA. In terms of economics, football postseason is already analogous to a "Super League." The NCAA makes no money on bowls/playoffs. March Madness is analogous to Champions League... it's basically the only way each governing body can make money. For that reason, the NCAA will not give a rip how the conferences decide to make the football postseason, but you better believe they'd have equally harsh threats if basketball schools tried to break away from March Madness.

Someone earlier mentioned the Buffalo Bills and their 2 Billion dollar evaluation. American sports will always be more lucrative than Soccer. They exist to make money. But they're inherently more monetizable than Soccer is a sport. The most lucrative thing is TV advertising. 45 minutes of straight play makes is impossible to maximize commercial revenue. The NFL made up a BS two minute warning to get in another ad.

Beware of the looming mid half "water break".

Mathguy64 said:

---

Florentino Perez has spent all day talking about how clubs who "quit" the SL have to pay a penalty of 100MM euros to the clubs left in. He seriously thinks he's getting paid for this.

---

Needs the money to pays their massive contracts. They just signed Alaba on 240k/with after taxes

Aston94 said:

---

What will be interesting now is to see if Financial Fair Play gets pushed more, and even by these larger clubs.

The NFL is so successful because of the caps on spending for each team. These larger clubs need the cap so that they can protect themselves from having to keep up with the large spending.

---

The relegation and promotion is both a positive and negative of European soccer. It's a positive in that it makes the season matter a lot more but it's a major negative in that revenue streams can get seriously disrupted and are not guaranteed. This in turn creates a financial arms race among the top teams to guarantee that revenue stream.

Prior to TV money and global promotion the leagues were a lot more well rounded. Money is going to eventually cause the system to implode because the arms race cannot continue forever. At some point teams will start going bankrupt and then it will collapse.

They really do need revenue sharing. Basically you share revenue of the League you are in based upon overall contracts. You keep the relegation and promotion system but revenue from each team is based upon what league they are in. A team in the Champions league gets paid twice since they get revenue from that too. This is the only fair way to do it that won't ultimately lead to a collapse of the system and it also creates a more even playing field while maintaining the importance of the existing relegation/promotion system.

fig96 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

There's definitely some parallels, but we've really already got two defacto divisions within college football with the 5 majors and everyone else.

Formalizing that into a separate entity isn't really a huge stretch, unless they were to cherrypick only certain teams from the big conferences to form that league and only allow those teams into the playoff.

---

Well, I think that's essentially been the idea though in many camps. You would essentially take the top 25ish programs (revenue, prestige, performance, potential) and break away.

Valhalla said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

What will be interesting now is to see if Financial Fair Play gets pushed more, and even by these larger clubs.

The NFL is so successful because of the caps on spending for each team. These larger clubs need the cap so that they can protect themselves from having to keep up with the large spending.

---

The relegation and promotion is both a positive and negative of European soccer. It's a positive in that it makes the season matter a lot more but it's a major negative in that revenue streams can get seriously disrupted and are not guaranteed. This in turn creates a financial arms race among the top teams to guarantee that revenue stream.

Prior to TV money and global promotion the leagues were a lot more well rounded. Money is going to eventually cause the system to implode because the arms race cannot continue forever. At some point teams will start going bankrupt and then it will collapse.

They really do need revenue sharing. Basically you share revenue of the League you are in based upon overall contracts. You keep the relegation and promotion system but revenue from each team is based upon what league they are in. A team in the Champions league gets paid twice since they get revenue from that too. This is the only fair way to do it that won't ultimately lead to a collapse of the system and it also creates a more even playing field while maintaining the importance of the existing relegation/promotion system.

---

You raise some good points.

In the EPL though, the distribution is already really good. That's part of the complaint from the Big 6. It's also why the EPL is more competitive. The vast majority of revenues are distributed equally: https://sillyseason.com/money/premier-league-prize-money-100681/

The Bundesliga is a different story though... Bayern gets nearly triple what the bottom feeder makes (but still makes less in TV revenue distribution than the bottom EPL team!)

Edit to add link for Bundesliga:
https://football-finance.com/tv-revenue-distribution-1-bundesliga-2019-20-competition/

And the more I read, the more upset I get by the German model. It explicitly makes it difficult for upward mobility because it distributes based on your 5 year average position in the 1st or 2nd tier.

Evidently their rationale is that this is the best way to keep their top clubs somewhat competitive in European competitions since other leagues have better TV deals. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it helps explain why things are so static at the top in that league.

Adding one more link... https://www.forbes.com/sites/manuelveth/2019/05/13/tv-distribution-bundesliga-needs-to-learn-from-english-premier-league/

SIAP but did y'all see that Man U fans broke into the training ground to protest the Glazer Family who are the current owners of Man U?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/12283579/man-utd-fans-stage-protest-against-glazer-family-at-clubs-carrington-training-ground-amid-european-super-league-scandal

Outside of Bayern, the Bundesliga doesn't strike me as particularly static by European standards at the top; but I do appreciate that they're trying to address some funding inequities and also beef up funding for the 2nd Bundesliga. The idea was always to have relative parity between the top two divisions but I don't think it's bore out quite as much as they say they wanted it to.

Valhalla said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

What will be interesting now is to see if Financial Fair Play gets pushed more, and even by these larger clubs.

The NFL is so successful because of the caps on spending for each team. These larger clubs need the cap so that they can protect themselves from having to keep up with the large spending.

---

The relegation and promotion is both a positive and negative of European soccer. It's a positive in that it makes the season matter a lot more but it's a major negative in that revenue streams can get seriously disrupted and are not guaranteed. This in turn creates a financial arms race among the top teams to guarantee that revenue stream.

Prior to TV money and global promotion the leagues were a lot more well rounded. Money is going to eventually cause the system to implode because the arms race cannot continue forever. At some point teams will start going bankrupt and then it will collapse.

They really do need revenue sharing. Basically you share revenue of the League you are in based upon overall contracts. You keep the relegation and promotion system but revenue from each team is based upon what league they are in. A team in the Champions league gets paid twice since they get revenue from that too. This is the only fair way to do it that won't ultimately lead to a collapse of the system and it also creates a more even playing field while maintaining the importance of the existing relegation/promotion system.

---

Revenue sharing is one aspect, but the big six are global brands, and they aren't sharing the revenue of shirt sales in the Far East.

The NFL also caps spending, thus the ultimate need, even for the big clubs, for Financial Fair Play.

YouBet said:

---

fig96 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

There's definitely some parallels, but we've really already got two defacto divisions within college football with the 5 majors and everyone else.

Formalizing that into a separate entity isn't really a huge stretch, unless they were to cherrypick only certain teams from the big conferences to form that league and only allow those teams into the playoff.

---

Well, I think that's essentially been the idea though in many camps. You would essentially take the top 25ish programs (revenue, prestige, performance, potential) and break away.

---

If that's the direction they go then there would definitely be some direct parallels.

What I've read is more the idea of breaking the FBS into two divisions, one with the Power 5 conferences and another with the smaller schools, which for all intents and purposes is what we already have happening.

Aston94 said:

---

Valhalla said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

What will be interesting now is to see if Financial Fair Play gets pushed more, and even by these larger clubs.

The NFL is so successful because of the caps on spending for each team. These larger clubs need the cap so that they can protect themselves from having to keep up with the large spending.

---

The relegation and promotion is both a positive and negative of European soccer. It's a positive in that it makes the season matter a lot more but it's a major negative in that revenue streams can get seriously disrupted and are not guaranteed. This in turn creates a financial arms race among the top teams to guarantee that revenue stream.

Prior to TV money and global promotion the leagues were a lot more well rounded. Money is going to eventually cause the system to implode because the arms race cannot continue forever. At some point teams will start going bankrupt and then it will collapse.

They really do need revenue sharing. Basically you share revenue of the League you are in based upon overall contracts. You keep the relegation and promotion system but revenue from each team is based upon what league they are in. A team in the Champions league gets paid twice since they get revenue from that too. This is the only fair way to do it that won't ultimately lead to a collapse of the system and it also creates a more even playing field while maintaining the importance of the existing relegation/promotion system.

---

Revenue sharing is one aspect, but the big six are global brands, and they aren't sharing the revenue of shirt sales in the Far East.

The NFL also caps spending, thus the ultimate need, even for the big clubs, for Financial Fair Play.

---

NFL teams still don't get equal revenue. The Cowboys make double what other teams do locally and they keep all of that.

The NFL model could still easily work since it involves corporate sponsorships, which is already something soccer has a lot of given that corporate logos are on jerseys.

If these teams care about EPL and other Euro leagues then they will do this. Otherwise, they are just delaying the inevitable formation of a Euro Super League.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Outside of Bayern, the Bundesliga doesn't strike me as particularly static by European standards at the top; but I do appreciate that they're trying to address some funding inequities and also beef up funding for the 2nd Bundesliga. The idea was always to have relative parity between the top two divisions but I don't think it's bore out quite as much as they say they wanted it to.

---

Bundesliga are actually more competitive than EPL when it comes to overall UEFA tournament qualification (that's practically always the same Big 6 and then someone else). And yeah as mentioned in the post just above me, the reason Bayern makes so much more than other Bundesliga clubs isn't because of the TV redistribution (because the Bundesliga TV deal sucks), it's because they make a killing on merch, sponsorships, tickets, etc that they don't have to share with anyone.

Serotonin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

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.

---

Yep, without a doubt. I can see both sides.

If the CFP expanded to 8, it would really stink for A&M if 6 slots get automatically filled by 5 conferences and a non-P5 team, leaving only 2 open slots.

In reality the SEC could probably field 3 or 4 of the 8 slots every year based on talent.

---

Yes, but every A&M and SEC fan should be 1000% in support of an expanded playoff to 8 teams. The 5 champs plus highest ranked G5 team will be included BUT will have a ranking requirement, as they are not going to allow a 9-3 PAC champ ranked #15 or 17th ranked Cincinnati to be in the playoff. Highly likely the "automatic" qualifiers it will be conditional to a Top 10 or Top 12 ranking.

More or most all of the "wild card" spot will be filled by 2 SEC teams, even 2 loss SEC teams. For aTm our best shot at an NC in the next 20+ years is an expanded playoff. Different for cow or OU or Clemson or a PAC team, but for an SEC team or a B1G West team, they should all be in support of an expanded playoff.

Just look at last season, our only loss was to Bama on the road who was #1 and clearly superior to everyone in the country, wire to wire champion and vastly superior to everyone. Still, with only that loss we did not make the CFP playoff. Add in that our schedule includes games vs. Auburn, FL, LSU, etc. not just Bama, one loss can negate an SEC team from the 4 team playoff field. Expanded to 8, there will be many times a TWO loss SEC team gets in.


Bringing this back to the Super League, it just go against the tradition, structure, and sporting merit / competition of the Euro soccer culture. I am not a fan of the UCL changes either but glad the SL has been dumped.

jeffk said:

---

Just the dumbest idea ever.

---

Enjoy watching bottom teams play each other in front of 15,000 instead of best in world

playing in front of 50,000 every week !

https://apnews.com/article/serie-a-premier-league-la-liga-europe-business-9fdff696ea3cecc515bcf88ade2a9e38

So the 9 clubs that have formally left the ESL will have to pay a fine to UEFA to re-enter the fold. And if they try and pull a stunt like that again, they'll each have to pay 100 million euros to UEFA.

And the 3 clubs that are still shouting about the ESL still being a thing? Could be banned from UEFA competitions.

BigJim49 AustinNowDallas said:

---

jeffk said:

---

Just the dumbest idea ever.

---

Enjoy watching bottom teams play each other in front of 15,000 instead of best in world

playing in front of 50,000 every week !

---

I mean, I do.

The fact that those lower levels teams in every league have something to play actually puts value on those games, vs watching say the Jaguars and Jets play in week 12 for absolutely nothing. Putting only the superclubs in a competition they're already guaranteed to be in just creates another competition with no stakes and lowers the value of any other league they compete in.

But we've already covered this extensively.

UEFA is crazy corrupt and it doesn't seem like anyone can do anything about it.

Nice little shakedown by Serafin. I wonder how much of that $18MM he's personally going to pocket.