European Super League - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#15168017
The foreign billionaires who own top clubs have proposed a way to make football even more corrupt and money grubbing than FIFA could ever achieve. Even though they've united every level of the sport against them I'm not sure that will deter them since most of their fans and money are outside Europe. Besides if they are successful in establishing a new league they'll never face the threat of relegation ever again.

https://www.cnet.com/news/european-supe ... ne-so-mad/
User avatar
By Juin
#15168020
AFAIK wrote:The foreign billionaires who own top clubs have proposed a way to make football even more corrupt and money grubbing than FIFA could ever achieve. Even though they've united every level of the sport against them I'm not sure that will deter them since most of their fans and money are outside Europe. Besides if they are successful in establishing a new league they'll never face the threat of relegation ever again.

https://www.cnet.com/news/european-supe ... ne-so-mad/




I only heard about this Super League today. Sounds crazy. How long had this been in the works?
#15168024
Juin wrote:I only heard about this Super League today. Sounds crazy. How long had this been in the works?

I've got a great idea - let's sell all our top football clubs to corrupt Russian oligarchs whose business practices owe more to Al Capone than to Warren Buffett, and then see what happens. After all, what could possibly go wrong...? :excited:
By Rich
#15168043
So I would just like to say to all those that went along with lock down, what did you expect? Of course no one will admit it but the most important purpose of lockdown was to stop people meeting. They only want people to meet on line under the supervision of big tech, where people can be censored and punished. This is all part of the great reset.

But before any one starts the great reset is not super overarching conspiracy, all directed by some secret evil group of illuminati or shape shifting aliens. There are many groups involved with different and in some case conflicting agendas. I have out lined the big 3.

The big tech surveillance industrial complex.
The pharmaceutical-sickness industrial complex
The Cultural Marxist-education industrial complex.

An important point to note is that like Eisenhower's military industrial complex of post Korea America, its not just about jobs, profits or share of GDP, but also about these leviathans ability to attract "the best and brightest". And also like Cold War military industrial complex, its not that these complexs have done nothing right. Its not that they haven't made significant even impressive achievements.

However there are many other groups like big Football. What gives the Great Reset cohesion, despite these competing and sometimes conflicting groups and agendas is the common recognition that this is an opportunity to greatly magnify the disparities of power, to take power away from ordinary people and to concentrate it in the power of experts, executives and ideologues.

People seem to think because I intransigently opposed lockdown that I'm just careless of risk. Far from it, well before most people I recognised the potential of the Xi virus. But the risk of lockdown on our societies is far, far worse, the power our big corporations and institutions were acquiring was terrifying before had anyone had heard of SARS-CoV-2, to let the powers that be see how easily they could do without so many of us, even just temporarily is a risk no sane electorate should ever take.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15168054
to let the powers that be see how easily they could do without so many of us, even just temporarily is a risk no sane electorate should ever take.

Die Lösung, by Bertolt Brecht

I suspect that our lords and masters would like to apply Brecht's proposed 'solution'....
#15168062
AFAIK wrote:The foreign billionaires who own top clubs have proposed a way to make football even more corrupt and money grubbing than FIFA could ever achieve.

Even when the transparently cynical cash grab is taken into account, the thing that strikes me most about this is how boring the proposed format is.

Take the existing Champions League as an example: I honestly don't know anyone who cares very much about the group stage. It already only exists to guarantee more revenue to the big clubs, because they didn't like the possibility of a first round exit in the old European Cup, which was a straight knockout.

But the proposed European Super League takes this utterly dull aspect of the Champions League and extends it to the entire season, and removes one of the knockout rounds (the only ones anyone actually pays any attention to). And their rationale that it'll be the "best teams, the best players, every week," also makes no sense. It's supposed to be two groups of 10 teams. By the second half of the season, half of those teams won't have a snowball's chance in hell of qualifying for the knockout stage. Why would they do anything other than play a second-string team?

All in all, it sounds fucking awful, and I'm not at all surprised three of the five founding chairmen are Americans. :lol:
User avatar
By noemon
#15168073
Independent wrote:
The billionaires hell-bent ​on ruining football must be brought to heel


Billionaires, big businesses with global brands, and a Wall Street bank with a multibillion-dollar financing package – this is where everyone’s supposed to cheer “goal!”

The new European Super League, which will see England’s “top” six clubs (including Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham) break from the Premier League, is surely going to bring in investment and, ah, jobs (maybe) and investment!

And at the front of the queue should be the government with its pom poms, playing cheerleader for the “free market” while saying “look it’ll bring in investment and, ah, jobs (maybe) and investment”.

That’s how big corporate actions are supposed to be greeted, right? Not as something to be concerned about, because the billionaire football bosses are ultimately investing in Britain! Aren’t they?

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that people behind this thought they'd get away with it. In their business lives before they started adding sports clubs to their collections of fine wines, and mansions and racehorses, they’ve always got away with such actions and they’ve usually been feted for doing so.

Their wheeling and dealing? Applauded, generally regardless of the jobs axed, the prices hiked, the damage done. There are gushing profiles courtesy of a compliant financial press. Dinners with politicians. Sometimes honours.

The modern Trumpian tactic of saying black is white and white is black again and again and again and having people believe it? It isn’t new. It’s been going on forever in corporate circles.

The owners of these clubs and their pals have been carving things up to their liking and conning us with the line that it’s capitalism, and everyone wins from the trickle-down when it’s red in tooth and claw, for years, in multiple arenas.

And people have largely bought it. Oh, there’s been the odd grumble here and there. A critic or two to put the other side in the media, but the point is that those in power have largely bought it too, usually with the aid of some lobbying (and we’re now seeing the messy results of that too aren’t we) and so it goes on.

It’s taken a step so naked, so brazen, so blatant in its unadulterated greed that it eclipses even football’s everyday variety, so shameless about its cynical attempt to fix the market, to get the people who usually greet stuff like this with an airy “of course, just make sure the cheque’s in the post” with the word “no”.

That must have come as quite the shock to the people behind this. They aren’t used to hearing that. This sort of sound and fury is strange music to them. Even their players, whose silence they might have hoped to buy with the prospect of a fat cheque, even they’ve been protesting. As well they might. A lot of them follow the NFL and they know that the next step in the sort of closed oligopoly envisaged by the creators of this league must be a salary cap.

Reading the room, the politicians, whom the money men usually divide and rule, are now promising action. But what sort of action?

Well, that’s where it gets interesting. One of the steps under consideration is using competition law to bring a halt to this, which is by far the least radical option, and thus the most palatable to ministers, and also some sort of joke.

Competition law is supposed to keep business honest but it rarely does. Corporate actions are always announced “subject to regulatory approval” but it’s vanishingly rare for that not to be granted.

Oligopolies like that one envisaged, even outright monopolies, can be seen wherever you look.

There are just a handful of banks of any size in this country. Ditto insurance companies. There’s a single search engine (Google the number of people who use Bing if you don’t believe me). Facebook, Apple and their mates buyout potential threats to their businesses every day. Amazon has crushed whole retail sectors beneath Jeff Bezos’ boots.

Competition is what the modern model of capitalism is supposed to be all about but it’s a lot less intense than its defenders would have you believe. Part of the reason is that the laws that are supposed to enforce it are as weak as a three-year-old’s first shot on goal. No wonder lawyers have been doing the media rounds saying it won’t work.

Alternatively, there’s the genuinely radical option of following Germany’s model in which fans are given majority voting control of clubs. Such a – dare I say it – stakeholder model would be very welcome beyond football. There are a few examples knocking around that work pretty well.

But forcing it through would require politicians to take on the billionaires and their lobbyists, and their PR people. It would involve that little word “no” spoken firmly.

I’ve already seen people muttering about the “loss of investment” in the English game as a risk if they did that. Next, they’ll be explaining why it can’t be done. Too complicated you see.

We’ve heard these arguments before. It’s the reason the people behind this are probably minded to batten down the hatches. They probably think that they’ll win if they do because they always have.
User avatar
By Beren
#15168102
Rich wrote:There are many groups involved with different and in some case conflicting agendas. I have out lined the big 3.

The big tech surveillance industrial complex.
The pharmaceutical-sickness industrial complex
The Cultural Marxist-education industrial complex.

You shouldn't have left out the Environmental-Industrial Complex, which is the most pro-lockdown perhaps. They openly argue lockdowns are useful to the environment anyway, so it doesn't really matter if they're actually necessary or effective against Covid. However, lockdowns are not really effective against climate change as well, unfortunately, so they won't go green totalitarian that way perhaps.

Image
User avatar
By Beren
#15168107
Also: PM Orbán: Hungary Against Plan to Set up European Super League

ImageHungarian PM Viktor Orban (left) with Sandor Csanyi (right), chairman and chief executive officer of OTP Bank Group, one of the
largest financial groups in the CEE Region and the largest bank of Hungary, chairman of the Hungarian Football Federation, one
of Hungary's richest people and oligarchs.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15168110
LET CAPITALISM RING!

On a serious note... money talks, and those that have money talk, while those that don't are told to shutup. :hmm:

What are the odds Austin FC are allowed into the super league?

Image

Verde Listos!
#15168171
Well, it seems that this thing has descended into a complete shambles already. All six English teams are pulling out, apparently, and Man Utd's CEO has resigned. :lol:
User avatar
By noemon
#15168181
Telegraph wrote:It was on the Spanish chat show El Chiringuito late on Monday evening that the Real Madrid president Florentino Perez declared with some confidence that, along with his 11 European Super League co-conspirators, he was about to “save football” and within 24 hours many would argue that he had done just that.

Some of the most powerful clubs in the European game, and some of its wealthiest owners had suffered the most astounding humiliation in sporting history. The career of their most ambitious leader, Ed Woodward, the Manchester United executive vice-chairman, and chief architect of this, the game’s most divisive breakaway, was hastily curtailed. In Italy, doubt surrounded the future of the equally hawkish Andrea Agnelli, president of Juventus, and erstwhile chairman of the European Club Association whom he had abandoned as recently as Sunday.

In west London, protesting Chelsea fans flocked to an empty Stamford Bridge and sat in Fulham Broadway to block the team bus entering for the fixture against Brighton. The club’s legendary former goalkeeper Petr Cech, now technical director, was compelled to break out of the Covid-secure bubble and negotiate from behind a line of police officers. “Give us time!” he could be heard shouting in response to fans’ demands. But Roman Abramovich did not need time. From an undisclosed location, on an undisclosed phoneline, the Russian owner pulled the plug on Chelsea’s involvement and very soon the European Super League would be no more.

First Chelsea went, then Manchester City and then Atletico Madrid. Then came news of Woodward’s resignation, announced to club staff at Old Trafford – a decision that he had made some time ago, according to sources. Woodward, it was claimed, had planned to leave at the end of 2021 after 16 years at United overseeing the Glazer ownership but decided to make the announcement now. In quick succession, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United and Liverpool all withdrew. The public relations experts instructed in five European countries who had so far bullishly stood by the plans were told to stand down. The line went cold. The league was dead.

In Spain, the country’s richest man, Perez, the old dictator of Real Madrid - kings of the European Cup, kings of the Champions League - had indeed made history. Perhaps he had even saved football. This had been a furious three-day reckoning and the once secret plans of this wealthy elite of venture capitalists and fossil fuel billionaires, of career football politicians like the old man in charge at the Bernabeu were over. The limits of their power had been exposed. The people had spoken.

Project Big Picture, the proposal to radically change the voting rights and revenue distribution of the Premier League, lasted five days before it was killed at a Premier League shareholders’ meeting on a Thursday lunchtime in October. The lifespan of its equally disreputable sibling, the Super League, did not even make it past three days. The power-grab reforms of the wealthiest clubs and their owners, emboldened by losses incurred in the pandemic, have been defeated for a generation and maybe even longer. The game is still imperfect, still riven by inequality, still loaded with debt and jacked up on inflated player wages. But the last five months have told us that some lines cannot be crossed.

An extraordinary day. At 11am, the Premier League shareholders met for the first time with six of their number absent, unthinkable in the past for a collective that has prided itself on the tight discipline of its governance and the collegiate nature of its decision-making. While talks went on for more than three hours, Wolverhampton Wanderers’ official account tweeted that maybe it was too late for a bus parade to celebrate their 2019 Premier League title. They had finished seventh that year, behind six clubs who were now breakaway rebels. Southampton’s account offered congratulations and pointed out that under those rules Saints were now the 2015 champions. There was a mood of insurrection.

In the meeting the 14 clubs discussed their next move. Even then they believed that the sheer weight of public feeling – the universal condemnation from politicians, royalty and governing bodies - would be too hard for the six rebel clubs to bear for long. They suspected that City and Chelsea, whose owners regarded their clubs primarily as a public relations exercise, would be the least enthusiastic. There was a quiet confidence that they had won the war already, the question now would be how to win the peace.

It was clear then, as it is now, that the six rebel clubs could not be allowed to come back into the fold without punishment for breaking Rule L9 that prohibits members from entering unsanctioned competitions. But the executives noted that punishment of players and managers would be unfair on individuals who had played no part in the plotting. Any punishment would target specifically those who had knowledge and complicity. How many of them may offer themselves up for sanctions is another question.

What is certain is that the wounds, already raw from Project Big Picture, will take a long time to heal. The most radical among the 14 would like the Premier League to have the kind of regulatory powers conferred on US leagues who can compel an owner to sell a franchise if they are determined to have taken action that contravenes the values and integrity of the competition. That day still seems a long way off, but what is certain is that this was a victory for the Premier League, for its 14-strong super majority, for the likes of Leicester City, Southampton and Crystal Palace.

At the Premier League office there was elation. Getting the 2020-2021 season completed in the teeth of the pandemic had been an exhausting, no-days-off exercise. Then this season, chief executive Richard Masters and his team had been hit by two huge betrayals from the major clubs. This morning, the world’s most popular sport league finds itself battered, divided, and with a whole new level of resentment and mistrust among some of its members. Yet, still intact.
By B0ycey
#15168267
Well it won't go anywhere given the 6 English teams dropped out. But what clubs need to understand is the more money in competitions we have, we don't really see that money go to the club nor the shareholders as it happens (big clubs are all in borrowed debt), but in wages to the players. It is what happens in America and what we have seen in the Premier League since 1992 as clubs race to the bottom to pay stars to sign up for their clubs. Playing in a ESL would just mean we would see our first $Bn player and not really a better standard of game given the best teams always playout cagey 0-0 matches. Which is why I have given up on football for a while now. It just isn't the same feeling given that even the FA Cup is a competition no major teams really gives a shit about given the money is in the Premier league and not in the FA Cup. And yet, realistically there is only four teams that can compete for the league (but you might get the odd Leicester happen once in a while), but on a single match anyone can beat anyone and as such most clubs only route to silverware in a season. And really isn't filling up you cabinet all that matters to supporters? :hmm:
#15168268
B0ycey wrote:Well it won't go anywhere given the 6 English teams dropped out. But what clubs need to understand is the more money in competitions we have, we don't really see that money go to the club nor the shareholders as it happens (big clubs are all in borrowed debt), but in wages to the players. It is what happens in America and what we have seen in the Premier League since 1992 as clubs race to the bottom to pay stars to sign up for their clubs. Playing in a ESL would just mean we would see our first $Bn player and not really a better standard of game given the best teams always playout cagey 0-0 matches. Which is why I have given up on football for a while now. It just isn't the same feeling given that even the FA Cup is a competition no major teams really gives a shit about given the money is in the Premier league and not in the FA Cup. And yet, realistically there is only four teams that can compete for the league (but you might get the odd Leicester happen once in a while), but on a single match anyone can beat anyone and as such most clubs only route to silverware in a season. And really isn't filling up you cabinet all that matters to supporters? :hmm:

What about changing the rules of game? Abolishing the offside rule would be an option to make games more entertaining. We need to skip 19th and 20th century structures.

European football is losing. Fans do not realize it yet. But they will have to accept American approach to save European football.
By B0ycey
#15168269
Istanbuller wrote:What about changing the rules of game? Abolishing the offside rule would be an option to make games more entertaining. We need to skip 19th and 20th century structures.

European football is losing. Fans do not realize it yet. But they will have to accept American approach to save European football.


Football doesn't need changing. VAR has been a mistake that everyone knows was a mistake but because so much money was put into it, the governing bodies would rather fuck around with the rules than just get rid of it. It is also a game that has been around as a federation for over a century and still remains the most popular sport on the planet. If ESL was created fans would still watch the matches and pay to watch it. So all that happens is fans get priced out of Football and the players make more money. I wish people were more like me and just said fuck the sport but they consider it as important as anything else in their life and to them their clubs are just as important as their children. Which is why they protest. Not because the sport needs changing but to retain it how it is.
#15168272
B0ycey wrote:Football doesn't need changing. VAR has been a mistake that everyone knows was a mistake but because so much money was put into it, the governing bodies would rather fuck around with the rules than just get rid of it. It is also a game that has been around as a federation for over a century and still remains the most popular sport on the planet. If ESL was created fans would still watch the matches and pay to watch it. So all that happens is fans get priced out of Football and the players make more money. I wish people were more like me and just said fuck the sport but they consider it as important as anything else in their life and to them their clubs are just as important as their children. Which is why they protest. Not because the sport needs changing but to retain it how it is.

Games would be more entertaining if there were more goals. Also a draft system for players could be useful. Fans would track who their teams sign.
By B0ycey
#15168273
Istanbuller wrote:Games would be more entertaining if there were more goals. Also a draft system for players could be useful. Fans would track who their teams sign.


An argument can be made that one of the reasons for the success of Football is the scarcity of goals actually. Sure goals are what people pay to watch and 0-0 games are boring, but when a goal is scored a rush of endorphins erupts for the spectator and as such you get more pleasure from it. Compare that to Basketball where the crowd cheer is by and large subdue and people will buy a hotdog or go to the toilet even though balls are being thrown in the net because the rush isn't the same.

I also think you are ignoring that football is the most successful sport on the planet and the rules have barely changed in my lifetime. Football doesn't need changing and you will find the resistance is because people are fighting change not asking for it. As I said, for me football has lost all meaning since the PL and players became more important than the clubs they represent. Clubs are also going bankrupt because they are forced to keep up and cannot afford the wages they have to offer. It is a product of Capitalism and if money was indeed going to the clubs, these decisions would at least make economic sense. But they don't. More money in football hasn't improved football because the best World Cup ever was in 1990. More money in football just means clubs have more money to offer their stars and that is it.
#15168286
B0ycey wrote:Well it won't go anywhere given the 6 English teams dropped out. But what clubs need to understand is the more money in competitions we have, we don't really see that money go to the club nor the shareholders as it happens (big clubs are all in borrowed debt), but in wages to the players.

Well, there's a reason for that: the owners deliberately structure their clubs that way so they can write their ownership down as a loss for tax purposes.

Make no mistake about it - when it comes to the top football teams, the owners are absolutely raking it in. They just know how to make it look otherwise when HMRC comes knocking. :lol:

Eh...did we read the same paper? Also nothing abo[…]

Are you really this dense? Because Egypt is alli[…]

@Potemkin , I would guess that Pemberton's thinki[…]

When did redlining end? Let me know if you need […]