Is the Champions League bad for football?

5starpool

deisedude wrote: »

I cant see how having 4 British and Spanish teams is in anyway good for football throughout Europe. It may be good for the coffers of UEFA but certainly not football. Is it any wonder the likes of the league of Ireland is on its deathbed? If the Irish league champions got at least some European game with exposure the league would be more popular here, the same applies across Europe. The Champions league while entertaining embodies all that is wrong with football. The game is ruled by fatcats with suits. The rich remain rich and the poor remain poor. Anyone who makes claims that this is fairer or better for football is talking ****:mad:

But if it is good for smaller countries then the big teams won't exist in it anymore. Rightly or wrongly, the game is controlled by money now, and if there are too many of the smaller clubs in the premier competition then there will not be the money so the big clubs will make their own arrangements outside of the current regulatory bodies.

This year there has been a move to make it easier for some of the less fashionable countries to gain entry to the champions league proper, and I bet for the most part, they will be the whipping boys of the group stages.

Saying, it should be this or it should be that, is not going to help the smaller teams. It might for a couple fo years, but then the disgruntled teams from the bigger countries who don't get to participate will get all up in arms with UEFA again, and the status quo will be returned as they will have the backing of the big sponsors and TV companies.

The champions league is too much big business to have change happen to it now without a better alternative that suits the big money teams. A sad reality possibly, but a reality nonetheless.

I remember being shocked years ago when John Barnes signed a new contract at Liverpool for 10k a week, but midlevel championship lads are getting that now. The game is not the same as it was and that is whay it cannot go back to the old format.

DSB

5starpool wrote: »

But if it is good for smaller countries then the big teams won't exist in it anymore. Rightly or wrongly, the game is controlled by money now, and if there are too many of the smaller clubs in the premier competition then there will not be the money so the big clubs will make their own arrangements outside of the current regulatory bodies.

This year there has been a move to make it easier for some of the less fashionable countries to gain entry to the champions league proper, and I bet for the most part, they will be the whipping boys of the group stages.

Saying, it should be this or it should be that, is not going to help the smaller teams. It might for a couple fo years, but then the disgruntled teams from the bigger countries who don't get to participate will get all up in arms with UEFA again, and the status quo will be returned as they will have the backing of the big sponsors and TV companies.

The champions league is too much big business to have change happen to it now without a better alternative that suits the big money teams. A sad reality possibly, but a reality nonetheless.

I remember being shocked years ago when John Barnes signed a new contract at Liverpool for 10k a week, but midlevel championship lads are getting that now. The game is not the same as it was and that is whay it cannot go back to the old format.

Yeah but the thread isn't about what can be done about it, its about whether its a bad thing, and I'd say the majority of us reckon it is.

5starpool

DSB wrote: »

Yeah but the thread isn't about what can be done about it, its about whether its a bad thing, and I'd say the majority of us reckon it is.

Oh well in that case we might as well lock the thread.

DSB

5starpool wrote: »

Oh well in that case we might as well lock the thread.

Whys that? Theres been enough people in here saying the pandering to the big clubs is a good thing, its not that much of a closed book, although you'd think it would be.

5starpool

DSB wrote: »

Whys that? Theres been enough people in here saying the pandering to the big clubs is a good thing, its not that much of a closed book, although you'd think it would be.

Why? If you only want people to say "its bad" or "its good" it's not going to be much of a thread.

DSB

5starpool wrote: »

Why? If you only want people to say "its bad" or "its good" it's not going to be much of a thread.

I'm not trying to make people say or not say ANYTHING.

5starpool

DSB wrote: »

Yeah but the thread isn't about what can be done about it, its about whether its a bad thing, and I'd say the majority of us reckon it is.

DSB wrote: »

I'm not trying to make people say or not say ANYTHING.

.

DSB

5starpool wrote: »

.

Me arguing that what you're saying isn't all that relevant isn't exactly censorship.

deisedude

5starpool wrote: »

But if it is good for smaller countries then the big teams won't exist in it anymore. Rightly or wrongly, the game is controlled by money now, and if there are too many of the smaller clubs in the premier competition then there will not be the money so the big clubs will make their own arrangements outside of the current regulatory bodies.

This year there has been a move to make it easier for some of the less fashionable countries to gain entry to the champions league proper, and I bet for the most part, they will be the whipping boys of the group stages.

Saying, it should be this or it should be that, is not going to help the smaller teams. It might for a couple fo years, but then the disgruntled teams from the bigger countries who don't get to participate will get all up in arms with UEFA again, and the status quo will be returned as they will have the backing of the big sponsors and TV companies.

The champions league is too much big business to have change happen to it now without a better alternative that suits the big money teams. A sad reality possibly, but a reality nonetheless.

I remember being shocked years ago when John Barnes signed a new contract at Liverpool for 10k a week, but midlevel championship lads are getting that now. The game is not the same as it was and that is whay it cannot go back to the old format.

I do realise it will never return to the way it was. The question was, is it bad for football and no doubt it is. The champions league is a soulless competition where the rich play the mega rich. Football has been corrupted by greed. Of course the big clubs arent going to agree to reformatting the league, that would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas. Perez of Real Madrid has said he wants a league of only the top teams playing each other every week purely because this means more moolah and shirt sales. I know i'm veering off topic but to be honest i wouldnt mind if some of the top clubs went tits up for the way they are financed. Its deplorable and sickening seeing the crazy money in football considering the economic climate worldwide

mink_man

no????

anonymous_joe

Without the Champions League we'd all have some anaemic god-awful parody of Yankball inflicted upon us where the London Eyes took on the Paris Towers, the Madrid Royals, and so on.

Why? Because the big clubs with the superstars that make football worth watching would breakaway.

What would probably be better for football in general would be to award more of the money in the earlier stages than in the latter, so that making the Last 16 for example, earns a lot more than it does now, with the majority of the prize kitty being gone by the time you've reached the final. That way money will go to leagues like the Greek, Dutch, Portugese, etc, who all regularly field teams in the last 16 or thereabouts.

purple_hatstand

Football does not exist in a vacuum.

We live in a capitalist society.

The heirarchy of football is as much a reflection of this as anything else you might care to mention (probably more so).

Would it be possible (or even useful) to apply communist principles to football with regards transfer fees, player wages, ticket prices, tv money outlay etc...without altering the very fabric of our society?

In life, as in football, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer; but IMO, the CL is just a symptom of this - not the cause.

"Is the CL bad for football?" should be "Can we remove football from the capitalist system and reinvent it as a sport which is meaningfully and properly competitive at all levels?"

IMO, the answer to both questions is "No".

But then, I'm feeling properly apocalyptic tonight...:D

Eirebear

JPA wrote: »

Winning or doing well in the Champions league brings 2 thing to a club, prestige and money.
Compare that to the UEFA cup where prestige is the only motivator for a team as the money is about 10 times less. (Not an exaggeration)
The distribution is just disgraceful.

This is a fair point, so why not spread the "Glamour teams" out a little?

Keep the CL for the champions of each country, and maybe some 2nd place qualifiers while sending the Arsenal's, Chelseas etc into the Europa League?

This not only adds more prestige to the tournament, but also creates more interest from Sponsors etc?

I know the 3rd place "parachute" into the Europa effectively does this, but more often than not it is seen as a bit of a downer for fans who have dropped out of the CL.

If the teams that are big draws, 3rd/4th place in England, Italy etc are there from the start, then there will be excitement from them at the very beginning, rather than being reluctant compettitors eventually.

DSB

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Why? Because the big clubs with the superstars that make football worth watching would breakaway.

Football is worth watching anyway.

orourkeda

DSB wrote: »

Football is worth watching anyway.

Always was and always will be. Just depends on each fans level of dedication

SectionF

purple_hatstand wrote: »

Would it be possible (or even useful) to apply communist principles to football with regards transfer fees, player wages, ticket prices, tv money outlay etc...without altering the very fabric of our society?

In life, as in football, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer;

You should try to keep up. It might make you less defeatist and have more belief in humans' ability to influence what you call 'life'.

(And that's before Obama... )