https://www.cnet.com/news/european-supe ... ne-so-mad/
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods
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/
Juin wrote:I only heard about this Super League today. Sounds crazy. How long had this been in the works?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I live in a very multicultural affluent county […]
In other words, it's the usual neo-Confederacy bul[…]
I can find endless articles like these ones: Feb […]
I've offered no definition of the word slavery.[…]