Football governance

[Candi_Hills]

5 minutes ago, Giselle said:

The source of the problem is that the CL has too many teams and the group stages are mostly a foregone conclusion. It would be better if the best teams played each other more often, I think all fans would agree. It would also be better if we didn’t have a bunch of one-sided matches between Real/Barca/PSG and some Eastern European team. The logical solution is to reduce teams, particularly Eastern European teams that are never competitive. And then fill the gap with more matches between the best teams. UEFA need to accept this compromise. Why risk the entire system just to include teams from Romania and Ukraine? 

I strongly disagree. It would be highly unfair to take 4 teams from England and only 1 or 0 from Ukraine. The solution is to scrap the shitty group stage, which is only there to create more games and ensure the big sides progress. It should be a knockout competition with the top 2 from each country. Each round should be 1 leg and it's the luck of the draw whether you're home or away. That way, your shitty Eastern European sides have a chance against Juventus. Imagine FC Sovietgrad Mentalists scaring the shite out of Ronaldo on some rotten winter night. It used to be that way (although it was 2 legs I think) and would be much more exciting and than the current format.

[Sima]

2 minutes ago, Giselle said:

UEFA already limit things through the coefficients system and multiple rounds of qualification which the biggest teams are exempted from. This idea is just furthering something that they’re already doing. 

Yeah, they're not stopping the actual champions from entering the 'Champions League' competition like you're suggesting here.

It's the same mentality that has suggested some countries shouldn't be allowed to enter WC qualifying.

[Kaizero]

6 minutes ago, Giselle said:

For who? Ratings are always highest when it’s the biggest teams playing each other. Ratings are highest in any sport, any competition when the best teams play each other. Football is competing against other sports for TV time and thus for money.

Ratings are highest towards the end of the tournament, irrespective of the teams playing. If a World Cup final ended up being contested between Sweden and Croatia, you'd get as high numbers as England vs Italy. People who aren't fans turn in for the event, not the teams involved. This is why group stage games between two historically massive sides does not necessary have high viewership numbers, because it's just a group game. In Croatia, Dinamo Zagreb vs Any would get higher viewership than Juventus vs Barcelona - which in turn means there's more to gain for UEFA viewership/ad wise through local representation for viewership than globalization.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Kaizero

[Thomson Mouse]

5 minutes ago, Giselle said:

Because the average fan doesn’t tune in to these matches. These clubs are gifted money that they’re not earning. It’s like if the NBA decided to include European teams who regularly get crushed. What’s the point? People tune in when things get competitive. Smaller clubs that don’t have any money are not competitive. It’s reality. Why deny it? 
 

Reduce the teams so matches are more competitive. More people will watch because the product is better. 

What a load of bollocks.

If you did that then Greece or Denmark wouldn’t euro champs.

Part of the beauty of when it was the champions cup or whatever it was called was teams from smaller league going up against the giants and winning.

The bigger teams generally had two legs to win, so tough shit if they went out.

[Sima]

1 minute ago, Candi_Hills said:

I strongly disagree. It would be highly unfair to take 4 teams from England and only 1 or 0 from Ukraine. The solution is to scrap the shitty group stage, which is only there to create more games and ensure the big sides progress. It should be a knockout competition with the top 2 from each country. Each round should be 1 leg and it's the luck of the draw whether you're home or away. That way, your shitty Eastern European sides have a chance against Juventus. Imagine FC Sovietgrad Mentalists scaring the shite out of Ronaldo on some rotten winter night. It used to be that way (although it was 2 legs I think) and would be much more exciting and than the current format.

Aye, in an ideal world they would fuck the seedings off completely, too.

PSG v Man City in the 1st round?  Tough shit, mate.  Would be class to see a relative minnow have a decent run due to luck of the draw instead of having the deck massively stacked against them from the off.

[Stifler]

It’s amazing how many top 6 fans actually think all these people watching watch because of the clubs themselves. It’s the players they watch, hence why the global ratings for the World Cup and Euro’s goes up. You think someone in Utah is watching because he loves Barca and has been waiting all week thinking about if they can get a result this weekend? Or is it because Messi is likely to do something stupidly good?

You think some guy in Blyth is watching the Super Bowl because he’s been watching the NFL all season and wants to see his Kansas City Chiefs win the Super Bowl? Or is it because it’s a one off event that captures the global audience?

[TheInfiniteOdyssey]

13 minutes ago, Giselle said:

The source of the problem is that the CL has too many teams and the group stages are mostly a foregone conclusion. It would be better if the best teams played each other more often, I think all fans would agree. It would also be better if we didn’t have a bunch of one-sided matches between Real/Barca/PSG and some Eastern European team. The logical solution is to reduce teams, particularly Eastern European teams that are never competitive. And then fill the gap with more matches between the best teams. UEFA need to accept this compromise. Why risk the entire system just to include teams from Romania and Ukraine? 

What an absolute load of rubbish, it's a European football competition, those teams have won their domestic leagues and as per co-efficient regulations deserve a place in the competition.

Not to mention, they'll have likely gone through an additional qualification play-off stage beforehand.

The meritocratic nature of the sport should be protected at all costs, even if UEFA are threatening to dilute it further.

[54]

10 minutes ago, Giselle said:

Because the average fan doesn’t tune in to these matches. These clubs are gifted money that they’re not earning. It’s like if the NBA decided to include European teams who regularly get crushed. What’s the point? People tune in when things get competitive. Smaller clubs that don’t have any money are not competitive. It’s reality. Why deny it? 
 

Reduce the teams so matches are more competitive. More people will watch because the product is better. 

Football isn't about money or the average fan, seeing Man United vs Real Madid all the time is boring as fuck, it also completely undermines the entire competitive nature of the sport if X team can't compete due to some arbitrary factor.

Also football is fluid and works in cycles, the "Big" teams change all the time, in the late 80's team like Red Star, Steaua București, PSV and Porto where winning it, you've also had teams from Russia and Ukraine winning the Europa League in the near history, just because the big clubs are different now, doesn't mean they should suffer.

If them teams arn't allowed in the top competitions, then how are them leagues meant to grow and compete, they will just linger there, not getting any exposure, and the standard of football will drop, resulting in less fans attending and the local areas of these clubs economy suffering, in a part of the world that isn't flowing in money, all because some already rich cunts want to get richer. 

Fuck that, and fuck this stupid idea.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by 54

[Thomson Mouse]

Just now, Stifler said:

It’s amazing how many top 6 fans actually think all these people watching watch because of the clubs themselves. It’s the players they watch, hence why the global ratings for the World Cup and Euro’s goes up. You think someone in Utah is watching because he loves Barca and has been waiting all week thinking about if they can get a result this weekend? Or is it because Messi is likely to do something stupidly good?

You think some guy in Blyth is watching the Super Bowl because he’s been watching the NFL all season and wants to see his Kansas City Chiefs win the Super Bowl? Or is it because it’s a one off event that captures the global audience?

Why you picking on someone in Blyth?

[Taylor Swift]

Just now, Candi_Hills said:

I strongly disagree. It would be highly unfair to take 4 teams from England and only 1 or 0 from Ukraine. The solution is to scrap the shitty group stage, which is only there to create more games and ensure the big sides progress. It should be a knockout competition with the top 2 from each country. Each round should be 1 leg and it's the luck of the draw whether you're home or away. That way, your shitty Eastern European sides have a chance against Juventus. Imagine FC Sovietgrad Mentalists scaring the shite out of Ronaldo on some rotten winter night. It used to be that way (although it was 2 legs I think) and would be much more exciting and than the current format.

Is it unfair today that England gets 4 teams and Denmark gets 1? From what everyone is saying, it’s grossly unfair. We should reduce English teams to 1 or 2, and give more places to teams from Denmark, Ukraine and Romania. Teams from those countries should be allowed to compete. No?

We should let the champions of Finland, Moldova and Albania automatic entry into the group stages. Because they deserve to compete. Never mind that they have no chance of qualification.

[Matt]

Big games between big teams attract interest because they don't happen that often and usually have a material bearing on the outcome of the competition, given those teams will also win most of the games against the rest. A mid-table dead rubber doesn't suddenly take on a great aura of wonder because it happens to involve Man Utd. 

[jdckelly]

Oh let them fuck off and be also rans see how they like finishing mid-table or horror of horrors bottom 

[Kaizero]

Just now, Giselle said:

Is it unfair today that England gets 4 teams and Denmark gets 1? From what everyone is saying, it’s grossly unfair. We should reduce English teams to 1 or 2, and give more places to teams from Denmark, Ukraine and Romania. Teams from those countries should be allowed to compete. No?

We should let the champions of Finland, Moldova and Albania automatic entry into the group stages. Because they deserve to compete. Never mind that they have no chance of qualification.

The coefficient system works well.

[Sima]

1 minute ago, Giselle said:

Is it unfair today that England gets 4 teams and Denmark gets 1? From what everyone is saying, it’s grossly unfair. We should reduce English teams to 1 or 2, and give more places to teams from Denmark, Ukraine and Romania. Teams from those countries should be allowed to compete. No?

We should let the champions of Finland, Moldova and Albania automatic entry into the group stages. Because they deserve to compete. Never mind that they have no chance of qualification.

Fuck it, reduce every country to one for me tbh.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Sima

[Thomson Mouse]

1 minute ago, Sima said:

Reduce every country to one for me tbh.

Like it used to be. ‘Champions’

[Taylor Swift]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

Big games between big teams attract interest because they don't happen that often and usually have a material bearing on the outcome of the competition, given those teams will also win most of the games against the rest. A mid-table dead rubber doesn't suddenly take on a great aura of wonder because it happens to involve Man Utd. 

I agree with this to an extent. I can see the argument that if Barca play Madrid ten times a year that it would dilute the importance of each match and dilute the product. It’s the only argument that makes sense, but it’s an argument against the super league concept, it’s not an argument against limiting non-competitive matches in the champions league group stages. 

[Kaizero]

1 minute ago, Sima said:

Fuck it, reduce every country to one for me tbh.

I miss the Cup Winners Cup.

[Thomson Mouse]

Just now, Giselle said:

I agree with this to an extent. I can see the argument that if Barca play Madrid ten times a year that it would dilute the importance of each match and dilute the product. It’s the only argument that makes sense, but it’s an argument against the super league concept, it’s not an argument against limiting non-competitive matches in the champions league group stages. 

It’s not the only argument that makes sense

[Taylor Swift]

2 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

The coefficient system works well.

It doesn’t. There are too many uncompetitive matches in the group stages. 

[54]

2 minutes ago, Giselle said:

Is it unfair today that England gets 4 teams and Denmark gets 1? From what everyone is saying, it’s grossly unfair. We should reduce English teams to 1 or 2, and give more places to teams from Denmark, Ukraine and Romania. Teams from those countries should be allowed to compete. No?

We should let the champions of Finland, Moldova and Albania automatic entry into the group stages. Because they deserve to compete. Never mind that they have no chance of qualification.

I'd be well up for that to be honest. Would be different every season, and not the same 8 clubs in the quarter final. Sounds fun.

[Thomson Mouse]

Just now, Giselle said:

It doesn’t. There are too many uncompetitive matches in the group stages. 

Don’t have groups

[Taylor Swift]

Just now, Thomson Mouse said:

It’s not the only argument that makes sense

All right, but it is for me. 

The other arguments ignore the reality of the average fan and what they’re interested in, ignores the reality of the average consumer and what they’re consuming.

[Kaizero]

2 minutes ago, Giselle said:

It doesn’t. There are too many uncompetitive matches in the group stages. 

For who? Seeing Rosenborg or another Norwegian team face off against European competition, even if they're already knocked out, used to be an annual television highlight. Molde almost reached the quarters in the EL this year as well, meaning we're not even just all dead rubber outfits anymore. It works for the markets that match is meant to work in at the stage the tournament is in. There's no interest for anyone not a fan of a club to watch a group stage game of a team they don't have any affinity to, it's boring.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Kaizero

[Tiresias]

I'm not convinced it isn't just a bluff aimed at getting a better negotiating position. The 6 english teams probably want to threaten it so they get to renogiate the terms of the premier league so they get a lot more of teh broadcasting money than the other teams. 

 

Honestly the concept of 'the big six' might be the most hateful part. Spurs? Really?

[Thomson Mouse]

1 minute ago, Giselle said:

All right, but it is for me. 

The other arguments ignore the reality of the average fan and what they’re interested in, ignores the reality of the average consumer and what they’re consuming.

Do they?