European Super League - plans announced

DM_7

Gbear wrote: »

This is why they need to shift the balancing effect from before the broadcast rights to after them.

It makes no sense that you try to sell Burnley vs Brighton the same way as Utd vs Liverpool. It's absurd. They're totally different products for very different audiences.

Give the clubs total control over their individual broadcasting rights, let them sell them whatever way they like, and then balance the income that comes in afterwards.

It might suit Burnley to charge £1 a match to stream their games (or whatever), or include a streaming service as part of a package that includes match tickets, because most Burnley fans are from Burnley, whereas the internationally marketable clubs might still fancy they can collectively bargain for their rights with the Skys, BTs, BeinSports and ESPNs of the world.

Take all the cash they generate, let the clubs keep a third of it, take a third for the PL/CL organisation, and split the rest equally among all the clubs.

It'd be a tax on the rich clubs to maintain the functioning of the environment that allows them to exist, but it'd give them the direct control over the product they're selling.

Premier league broadcasting pot is already spilt in a relatively fair way. Basic split between all club, top up for amount of games shown on tv, prize money based on league position. This process gives all teams a minimum number of live tv games, gives big name teams rewards for how often they will have games selected regardless ot actual perfoemance and rewards sides who actually do well.

Sky and BT are showing games in UK and in Ireland. The leagues sells rights around the world already and will move to whatever mechanism makes the most money collectively. They have already got amazon involved. If that means selling a package to watch a team they will do it but they are not going to get the clubs to go selling the rights.

Exclusivity is a major driver in getting rights sold for the best price. If amazon buy rights to Spurs games they may not have exclusive rights as another broadcaster could have rights to the other teams games.

The collective value of individual rights may be less than all sold in one lot.

Necro

This plan had merit aside from the closed shop idea of no relegation for "founding members"

Had they not included that to give the air of arrogance that there was an entitlement rather than earning the right to play there, they might have garnered some support.

Take that away, and it's a massively better league structure than that horror shop of a new CL proposed. It would be far more exciting than what we're going to end up with in 2024/25.

Iscreamkone

DM_7 wrote: »

Premier league broadcasting pot is already spilt in a relatively fair way. Basic split between all club, top up for amount of games shown on tv, prize money based on league position. This process gives all teams a minimum number of live tv games, gives big name teams rewards for how often they will have games selected regardless ot actual perfoemance and rewards sides who actually do well.

Sky and BT are showing games in UK and in Ireland. The leagues sells rights around the world already and will move to whatever mechanism makes the most money collectively. They have already got amazon involved. If that means selling a package to watch a team they will do it but they are not going to get the clubs to go selling the rights.

Exclusivity is a major driver in getting rights sold for the best price. If amazon buy rights to Spurs games they may not have exclusive rights as another broadcaster could have rights to the other teams games.

The collective value of individual rights may be less than all sold in one lot.

The big clubs will want to sell their own games. They don't want to share with Burnley etc.

Markitron

rob316 wrote: »

I refuse to pay for sky, but I cant believe they still charge for HD. Its 2021, it should be the bare standard.

You think that's bad? You can't even get Sky Sports HD on Vodafone's TV service. Pixelated 1994-O-Vision is all that's available.

Iscreamkone wrote: »

When Boris Johnson is on one side, it's very hard not to automatically be on the other side...

Fixed that for ye there.

Banjaxed82

In this day in age how is 'HD' even a selling point?

You still see it on some streaming services where they charge more for the HD version.

It's a bit like Virgin and the like selling you a bundle package with the landline as part of it. Do I use my landline? I can't even find the fooking phone.

Gbear

DM_7 wrote: »

Premier league broadcasting pot is already spilt in a relatively fair way. Basic split between all club, top up for amount of games shown on tv, prize money based on league position. This process gives all teams a minimum number of live tv games, gives big name teams rewards for how often they will have games selected regardless ot actual perfoemance and rewards sides who actually do well.

Sky and BT are showing games in UK and in Ireland. The leagues sells rights around the world already and will move to whatever mechanism makes the most money collectively. They have already got amazon involved. If that means selling a package to watch a team they will do it but they are not going to get the clubs to go selling the rights.

Exclusivity is a major driver in getting rights sold for the best price. If amazon buy rights to Spurs games they may not have exclusive rights as another broadcaster could have rights to the other teams games.

The collective value of individual rights may be less than all sold in one lot.

It's not just a matter of fairness between clubs. It's about access to the fans as well. The deals might suit everyone financially, but they don't suit all fans equally in terms of actually being able to watch the games.

There's absolutely no reason why you can watch all the Liverpool games on TV, but can't watch your local team, if you're Burnley, or even further down the pyramid.

Giving the ability for the clubs to directly market to their fans, and give them a good deal that works for them, might be better, or worse, or make no difference from a financial point of view, but it should be better for allowing more equal access to the football.

This is one of things that they're going on about with the ESL. That young people don't watch football, because they don't have attention spans, or whatever the ****. If the clubs can package their own matches in a way that suits them, that solves that problem. And it mostly solves piracy as well. They can have their own streaming platforms, they can manage the clipping of highlights, the commentary, they can have "value adds" stuff associated with their own clubs. TV networks are becoming obsolete in the modern environment. They continue to exist because of inertia and the pre-interenet generation. Long term, they're just another unnecessary middle man looking for their cut.

Fitz*

Iscreamkone wrote: »

When Chelsea fans, Sky and Gary Neville are on the one side, it's very hard not to automatically be on the other side...

Sky, the saviours of football and those who shouted loudest against the ESL always have their flagship MNF show behind a paywall. But this week, they showed the punditry for free around the world live on YouTube. You still had to pay for the actual football though.

Many of their videos on social media are geo-locked so that you can't see them outside of the UK & Ireland. This geo-locking was removed yesterday so that their videos from SSN were free to everyone around the world to see, as they hammered home the anti-ESL message. This geo-locking has been put back in place.

There's also a price hike due.

Don't tell me there wasn't a massive agenda there.

dor83

I wonder how much of a difference it would make to the price of broadcasting rights to have the big names guaranteed so they have their big games every year?

I also wonder how much the fans would accept before being happy with it, like if 1-2 teams were relegated from each group each season and replaced with qualifiers would that be enough or does it have to be every team needs to qualify every year. What if they set up a two tier system with the 2nd tier being 4 groups of 10 teams promoting a teams each every year and having the bottom 4-5 teams replaced by qualifying teams? A team could in theory finish bottom but then get back in the next season through their domestic performance, similar to the current CL system. Would fans accept something like that as even though the chances of the big clubs getting relegated are small like in domestic leagues, it would still be a possibility?

I'm just thinking of ideas for something that would keep fans happy but be a better alternative to the new CL format, which I personally think is terrible.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

Necro wrote: »

This plan had merit aside from the closed shop idea of no relegation for "founding members"

Had they not included that to give the air of arrogance that there was an entitlement rather than earning the right to play there, they might have garnered some support.

Take that away, and it's a massively better league structure than that horror shop of a new CL proposed. It would be far more exciting than what we're going to end up with in 2024/25.

Indeed. If UEFA had any smarts they would copy the ESL layout minus the no relegation clause of course. This would have the dual impact of exciting top level European football regularly as well as heading off the 12 "founding clubs" from coming back in a couple of years with a slightly tweaked version of their ESL (basically the same concept as now but no relegation as well, something they never needed in the first place imo).

Fr Tod Umptious

Gbear wrote: »

It's not just a matter of fairness between clubs. It's about access to the fans as well. The deals might suit everyone financially, but they don't suit all fans equally in terms of actually being able to watch the games.

There's absolutely no reason why you can watch all the Liverpool games on TV, but can't watch your local team, if you're Burnley, or even further down the pyramid.

Giving the ability for the clubs to directly market to their fans, and give them a good deal that works for them, might be better, or worse, or make no difference from a financial point of view, but it should be better for allowing more equal access to the football.

This is one of things that they're going on about with the ESL. That young people don't watch football, because they don't have attention spans, or whatever the ****. If the clubs can package their own matches in a way that suits them, that solves that problem. And it mostly solves piracy as well. They can have their own streaming platforms, they can manage the clipping of highlights, the commentary, they can have "value adds" stuff associated with their own clubs. TV networks are becoming obsolete in the modern environment. They continue to exist because of inertia and the pre-interenet generation. Long term, they're just another unnecessary middle man looking for their cut.

Then you are going to have a much wider gap between the haves and have nots.
The big teams will have no problem selling their rights packages at high prices and to a lot of people.
The likes of Burnley will struggle because because far less people are interested in their content than the content of the big clubs, so they will generate far less income from it.
And the less money Burnley earn the poorer the quality of the content they can put out.

John Henry and co would only love the opportunity to sell Liverpool's broadcast rights whether they be online or traditional TV.

Necro

Mya Teeny Wimp wrote:

Indeed. If UEFA had any smarts they would copy the ESL layout minus the no relegation clause of course This would have the dual impact of exciting top level European football regularly as well as heading off the 12 "founding clubs" from coming back in a couple of years with a slightly tweaked version of their ESL (basically the same concept as now but no relegation as well, something they never needed in the first place imo).

An auto-entry for year 1 and possible "parachute payments" in the event of a relegation would have been a much smarter plan.

Like you say, of the 12 perhaps AC Milan, Arsenal and Spurs would be most at risk in a relegation scenario and even at that it would depend on who the other participants were, they may not even have to be massively concerned about it.

Very short sighted, elitist thinking to use the closed shop no relegation idea.

Markitron

Fitz* wrote: »

Don't tell me there wasn't a massive agenda there.

Just wait until you hear their propaganda mixed in with Tyler's insufferable puns tonight, I guarantee it will be like clockwork.

US2

Maybe I've my tin foil hat on here, but I think this was all a show to get us on Euefa side while they snuck in the new format of the champions league..as it is now a team like West ham finished 5th and go in Europe league while Liverpool could finish 15th and get in champions league.

CSF

Markitron wrote: »

Just wait until you hear their propaganda mixed in with Tyler's insufferable puns tonight, I guarantee it will be like clockwork.

Already happened last night as Tyler was covering the Chelsea game.

Markitron

US2 wrote: »

Maybe I've my tin foil hat on here, but I think this was all a show to get us on Euefa side while they snuck in the new format of the champions league..as it is now a team like West ham finished 5th and go in Europe league while Liverpool could finish 15th and get in champions league.

By all accounts that change was happening without any major opposition anyway

CSF wrote: »

Already happened last night as Tyler was covering the Chelsea game.

Not surprised. Now that it is official they will have tightened up their talking points and ram it down our throats. These are the ****ers that tried to make transfer deadline day a national holiday and now they are the saviors of football. Makes you sick.

Gbear

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Then you are going to have a much wider gap between the haves and have nots.
The big teams will have no problem selling their rights packages at high prices and to a lot of people.
The likes of Burnley will struggle because because far less people are interested in their content than the content of the big clubs, so they will generate far less income from it.
And the less money Burnley earn the poorer the quality of the content they can put out.

John Henry and co would only love the opportunity to sell Liverpool's broadcast rights whether they be online or traditional TV.

Hence the tax, from my previous post. They could bargain for their own rights. They couldn't keep all the proceeds. The logic being that yes, you get control over any game you're in, but you're not the only one in that game, and you need the other team to make it work, so you have to prop up the format, by splitting the money somehow.

So, say if Liverpool sold directly to fans, and they made £200m a year, they'd keep 50m, 50m would go to the league (for prize money and whatever else), and 100m would go into a big pot.

If the total value of the deals for all the clubs was, say, £2B, Liverpool would get their 50m + their 1/20th share of the shared £1B pot (50m), for a total of 100m, while Brighton might get their own 5m + their 50m from the pot. The details are just to illustrate the point. It could be 50%/25%/25%, or it could be 0%/10%/90%. It'd be as fair as they negotiated it to be.

dor83

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Then you are going to have a much wider gap between the haves and have nots.
The big teams will have no problem selling their rights packages at high prices and to a lot of people.
The likes of Burnley will struggle because because far less people are interested in their content than the content of the big clubs, so they will generate far less income from it.
And the less money Burnley earn the poorer the quality of the content they can put out.

John Henry and co would only love the opportunity to sell Liverpool's broadcast rights whether they be online or traditional TV.

What about an online platform with worldwide streaming rights that is run by the leagues where fans would have maybe 3 subscription options:

Option 1: Pay a small fee, say €5 per month, for a highlights package and maybe a goals show where you can watch the live goals on the match days when there are a lot of matches at the same time. Maybe even one live match per round, chosen by the platform so people don't have a choice of matches. This would base the base subscription that everyone would have to pay.

Option 2: Pay higher fee, say €10-15 per month, and you get to pick a team and have access all to the selected teams matches live. A portion of this fee would go directly to the club, allowing the teams to make more based on their popularity.

Option 3: Pay another fee, say €15-20 per month, and you get access to every game live. This could then be split evenly between the clubs so it spreads the money out.

The prices are just examples to illustrate the point but it could be a middle ground between giving the big clubs the rights to their games and what is there now. It would also be better for fans because I would imagine the clubs would only have rights to their home games if they were selling them individually.

celt262

dor83 wrote: »

What about an online platform with worldwide streaming rights that is run by the leagues where fans would have maybe 3 subscription options:

Option 1: Pay a small fee, say €5 per month, for a highlights package and maybe a goals show where you can watch the live goals on the match days when there are a lot of matches at the same time. Maybe even one live match per round, chosen by the platform so people don't have a choice of matches. This would base the base subscription that everyone would have to pay.

Option 2: Pay higher fee, say €10-15 per month, and you get to pick a team and have access all to the selected teams matches live. A portion of this fee would go directly to the club, allowing the teams to make more based on their popularity.

Option 3: Pay another fee, say €15-20 per month, and you get access to every game live. This could then be split evenly between the clubs so it spreads the money out.

The prices are just examples to illustrate the point but it could be a middle ground between giving the big clubs the rights to their games and what is there now. It would also be better for fans because I would imagine the clubs would only have rights to their home games if they were selling them individually.

Believe it or not the entire world does not have adequate broadband for that.

namloc1980

US2 wrote: »

Maybe I've my tin foil hat on here, but I think this was all a show to get us on Euefa side while they snuck in the new format of the champions league..as it is now a team like West ham finished 5th and go in Europe league while Liverpool could finish 15th and get in champions league.

Wrong. They would still have to finish in a European qualification spot for the Europa League or the new Europa Conference. So would have to finish 5th, 6th or 7th at least (or win the FA Cup or EFL Cup).

Coillte_Bhoy

US2 wrote: »

Maybe I've my tin foil hat on here, but I think this was all a show to get us on Euefa side while they snuck in the new format of the champions league..as it is now a team like West ham finished 5th and go in Europe league while Liverpool could finish 15th and get in champions league.

They didnt sneak it in, these proposals have been common knowledge for months now

jobeenfitz

TheCitizen wrote: »

It’ll be quicker than that. Covid accelerated it. They botched it but as you say dispense with the closed shop bit and it will go ahead. The real big clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus Man C, Man U and Liverpool will maintain their position at the top table anyway. They didn’t need to security blanket of no relegation. Spurs though hopefully won’t qualify. They really had some cheek.

Man City also have some cheek, dodging FFP and being owned by a bunch of dodgy Arabs. Pot calling kettle black!

MrMusician18

None of the above ideas get around the fundamental problem: the game is spending, in total, a lot more money than it receives in revenue. All you're suggesting is that the ever shrinking pie be sliced a different way.

Unless revenue increases its ultimately about deciding which clubs go to the wall. Will it be lots of little ones or a few big ones.

TheCitizen

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Man City also have some cheek, dodging FFP and being owned by a bunch of dodgy Arabs. Pot calling kettle black!

I’m not a Man City fan. Spurs would have been the biggest imposters in it. It was probably them who wanted the no relegation more than anyone. Your R Madrid, Barca, Man C Man U and Liverpool wouldn’t have needed the no relegation. Spurs may have needed it though.

A club that hasn’t won its own domestic league for over 60 years should not have been in this top table on an invitation

Oat23

Incredible. I couldn't support a team owned by people like this knowing my money is going into their pocket when they don't give two f**ks about the club I love.

https://twitter.com/SkyKaveh/status/1384889590440501251?s=19

marklazarcovic

A European cup would be fantastic imo.. open to all,like the fa cup.. usual qualification in respective countries,big guns join in round 3 onwards..but open draw.. Dagenham and Redbridge Vs Barcelona in round 4 .. Yeovil Vs Bayern Munich .. fantastic..big away days abroad for small teams and their fans who never experience it..

Obviously not called the European cup.

Tippex

dor83 wrote: »

What about an online platform with worldwide streaming rights that is run by the leagues where fans would have maybe 3 subscription options:

Option 1: Pay a small fee, say €5 per month, for a highlights package and maybe a goals show where you can watch the live goals on the match days when there are a lot of matches at the same time. Maybe even one live match per round, chosen by the platform so people don't have a choice of matches. This would base the base subscription that everyone would have to pay.

Option 2: Pay higher fee, say €10-15 per month, and you get to pick a team and have access all to the selected teams matches live. A portion of this fee would go directly to the club, allowing the teams to make more based on their popularity.

Option 3: Pay another fee, say €15-20 per month, and you get access to every game live. This could then be split evenly between the clubs so it spreads the money out.

The prices are just examples to illustrate the point but it could be a middle ground between giving the big clubs the rights to their games and what is there now. It would also be better for fans because I would imagine the clubs would only have rights to their home games if they were selling them individually.

An example of this was what Neville said on MNF. Where he held up a phone and said the clubs (indicating United) want to sell live access to their own games via a phone (streaming service) where they charge $1 per week to overseas fans (he is talking about hundreds of millions a week). If they do it right and don;t be greedy they can make serious bank on that.

Royale with Cheese

marklazarcovic wrote: »

A European cup would be fantastic imo.. open to all,like the fa cup.. usual qualification in respective countries,big guns join in round 3 onwards..but open draw.. Dagenham and Redbridge Vs Barcelona in round 4 .. Yeovil Vs Bayern Munich .. fantastic..big away days abroad for small teams and their fans who never experience it..

Obviously not called the European cup.

That actually sounds like fun but there'd just be no room for it in the calendar for the teams already in the Champions/Europa League

~Rebel~

Tippex wrote: »

An example of this was what Neville said on MNF. Where he held up a phone and said the clubs (indicating United) want to sell live access to their own games via a phone (streaming service) where they charge $1 per week to overseas fans (he is talking about hundreds of millions a week). If they do it right and don;t be greedy they can make serious bank on that.

Would also be brilliant for fans. It’s funny, he was saying it with the intentions of it being a scathing remark, but actually made it sound like a great idea, and shone a bit of a light on it being Sky themselves and the other middlemen that screw fans the most.

Fitz*

Oat23 wrote: »

Incredible. I couldn't support a team owned by people like this knowing my money is going into their pocket when they don't give two f**ks about the club I love.

https://twitter.com/SkyKaveh/status/1384889590440501251?s=19

To play devil's advocate here, and give them some very unnecessary benefit of doubt, this needs more context.

For example were they at a home or away game, where a changed strip was required? Was it their first game?

Some American sports teams have multiple different colour strips and from what I have seen in my limited knowledge of basketball & American Football, the kits do not align to home/away. It can just be 'what do we feel like wearing today' at times.

Ardillaun

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think there will be a CL/ESL in all but name. The CL will be revamped in such a way to pretend that it is being more open and democratic. But the reality will be the odds and money will be heavily stacked towards the big name teams.

If you create a closed league circus, some owners will be tempted to pocket the massive cash windfall and not bother too much about performance.

Potential Underachiever

https://twitter.com/Fitzyfella/status/1384867701995212800

Fr Tod Umptious

Fitz* wrote: »

To play devil's advocate here, and give them some very unnecessary benefit of doubt, this needs more context.

For example were they at a home or away game, where a changed strip was required? Was it their first game?

Some American sports teams have multiple different colour strips and from what I have seen in my limited knowledge of basketball & American Football, the kits do not align to home/away. It can just be 'what do we feel like wearing today' at times.

No
For example in the NFL teams usually just have two shirts.
One coloured, one white.
Home team wears the coloured, away team wears the white.
Sure there are odd games with special retro or tribute shirts, but for the most part it's just coloured and white.

adaminho

Fitz* wrote: »

To play devil's advocate here, and give them some very unnecessary benefit of doubt, this needs more context.

For example were they at a home or away game, where a changed strip was required? Was it their first game?

Some American sports teams have multiple different colour strips and from what I have seen in my limited knowledge of basketball & American Football, the kits do not align to home/away. It can just be 'what do we feel like wearing today' at times.

I always remember a a hypothetical question my dad used always asked. If you travelled to a game anywhere in the world with no knowledge, how do you identify the home team?

dor83

celt262 wrote: »

Believe it or not the entire world does not have adequate broadband for that.

Yeah I understand that, not everyone in Ireland would have it but if they want to sell their own games to people on an individual basis it's how they would do it because even if they want to use their club channels they would still need a TV broadcaster like Sky or something. That would make it even worse for fans, you'd need to pay a Sky sub, then your clubs channel and that would most likely only get you home games because the other team would have the rights to sell their home games.

The Big Easy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No
For example in the NFL teams usually just have two shirts.
One coloured, one white.
Home team wears the coloured, away team wears the white.
Sure there are odd games with special retro or tribute shirts, but for the most part it's just coloured and white.

This completely escaped me and I watch quite bit of the NFL. It's amazing what the brain can filter out and not make connections with, or maybe it's just my brain :P

Thanks for bringing this to my conscious mind :pac:

dor83

Tippex wrote: »

An example of this was what Neville said on MNF. Where he held up a phone and said the clubs (indicating United) want to sell live access to their own games via a phone (streaming service) where they charge $1 per week to overseas fans (he is talking about hundreds of millions a week). If they do it right and don;t be greedy they can make serious bank on that.

I hadn't seen MNF myself so didn't know what he had suggested myself, I think the difference with what I suggested would be that it would be run as a single platform where you could buy individual club packages or the whole thing. I think individual clubs selling their games would only make the money difference between big and smaller clubs too big and make it worse for fans who want to watch the whole league. I actually think that a more even split between teams, like the current PL system, is the best way to do it but I do understand why the big clubs think they deserve more because they attract more viewers.

jayo26

The PSG president is the new ECA president, great move have read he is very forward thinking and exciting new ideas.

Headshot

jayo26 wrote: »

The PSG president is the new ECA president, great move have read he is very forward thinking and exciting new ideas.

PSG must be sitting back knowing they played a blinder and are reaping the rewards

piplip87

There's an opportunity here to really revamp European Club Football.

Could do a division of 20 teams over multiple divisions.

Division 1 - top 4 from (Spain, France, Italy, Germany England)

Division 2- next two from the 5 top leagues. Top two from Scotland, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia and Greece.

Division-3, 4, 5 etc based on coefficient so all leagues top two are involved.

Whoever wins a division is promoted for the next season and if for example United finish bottom of division one whoever comes fourth in England drop down the next season.

20 games spread out throughout the season.

jayo26

Headshot wrote: »

PSG must be sitting back knowing the played a blinder and are reaping the rewards

Yeah unreal how well its worked out for the clubs that sat back to see the reaction.

Arne_Saknussem

piplip87 wrote: »

There's an opportunity here to really revamp European Club Football.

Could do a division of 20 teams over multiple divisions.

Division 1 - top 4 from (Spain, France, Italy, Germany England)

Division 2- next two from the 5 top leagues. Top two from Scotland, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia and Greece.

Division-3, 4, 5 etc based on coefficient so all leagues top two are involved.

Whoever wins a division is promoted for the next season and if for example United finish bottom of division one whoever comes fourth in England drop down the next season.

20 games spread out throughout the season.

And say if Feyenoord top Div 2 but finish 3rd in the Dutch League, do PSV(who finished 5th the previous season) get to have the benefit of all their hard work by playing in the top division the next season while Feyenoord are not in Europe at all?

piplip87

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

And say if Feyenoord top Div 2 but finish 3rd in the Dutch League, do PSV(who finished 5th the previous season) get to have the benefit of all their hard work by playing in the top division the next season while Feyenoord are not in Europe at all?

Ah lad. Ill leave that FOR UEFA to sort out

wally79

They could just make the qualifiers go one round more so half of the smaller teams wouldn’t make the groups

You could then have for example 16 teams in 2 groups of 8 which will be seeded and top 4 in each go through

This gives the top teams more games against each other in the group and most likely games against each other in the knockout which is apparently what the ESL claimed to be about

Ardillaun

Have the oligarchs and their minions not been down the pub this century? Ordinary people hate the notion of any further erosion of national identity by faceless corporations, and losing major soccer teams to a cosy, members-only, multinational league would certainly typify such a trend. I can’t understand how they thought they’d get away with this.

Agent Coulson

Richard Masters has requested that the Big 6's CEO's to step down from all the committees they on in regards to the running of the Premier League.

BorneTobyWilde

Hilarious all these players coming out after it has collapsed, De Bruyne, a guy who DEMANDED 400,000 pounds a week to stay at City suddenly cares about grassroots football.

https://twitter.com/DeBruyneKev/status/1384572733653229572


Posting that yesterday evening when it was dead in the water already. Give me a break. It's his demands and wages that have caused it.

At least the Liverpool players had a go Monday, when it was still full steam ahead for the SL

BorneTobyWilde

They should bring into law a wages cap. 150,000 the top bracket. Let Messi play for the club he wants to play at, not the one willing to break the club just to have him, have it that NO ONE can pay him more than 150,000 a week.

wally79

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

They should bring into law a wages cap. 150,000 the top bracket. Let Messi play for the club he wants to play at, not the one willing to break the club just to have him, have it that NO ONE can pay him more than 150,000 a week.

Some team in China or the Middle East will pay it. It has to be a global cap or nothing

Damien360

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

They should bring into law a wages cap. 150,000 the top bracket. Let Messi play for the club he wants to play at, not the one willing to break the club just to have him, have it that NO ONE can pay him more than 150,000 a week.

So I own a club called Arab Utd and I’ll pay him 150,000 per week. But look here’s our sponsor Saudi 4ever which I also own, and I’ll pay him 500k per week to appear once a year on our magazine.

How do you control a wage cap ? There are ways around all that. Just look at GAA managers here that officially don’t get paid.

BorneTobyWilde

Uefa showed their true colours too, going after the players, who had NOTHING to do with it. Their first thought and statement was a threat to the players and the club, which had ZERO to do with any of it. They should have went after the owners and presidents, but no, threaten the players with bans from leagues, bans from competitions, bans from playing for their countries.