European Super League - Cartel

[IceCoolSuperStud]

European Super League Proposals.

I read with interest about the modern proposals for a European Super League.

But I think the idea of having 16 teams, with guaranteed places for some sides is totally wrong and unacceptable. It is a cartel of dominant clubs, and nations, locking out other challengers, agains the spirit of competition. This idea of the present big clubs being guaranteed a place in the European Super League for 20 years is disgusting, corrupt, and a disgrace.

 

Unfair on small nations and clubs in the big nations outside the elite clubs who want to join the elite.

Why should the big nations be guaranteed places in the the league, with small nations kept out? This will further entrench big nations as having a dominant monopoly affect on Europe. If the big clubs are good enough, then they should proove it by qualifying for the Super League, each season?

If they are not good enough, that is their fault, and should not be ensured a place they do not deserve.

Queens Park, of Glasgow, Scotland, were once one of the top sides in World football, does that mean they should be guaranteed a place in the European Super League, because they were good in the 19th century?

How would you feel if the big nations were guaranteed places in the World Cup? Or with Brazil or Germany, ensured a place in the Quarter Final, for the next 20 years?  It is nonsense. Or if Roger Federer was guaranteed a place in Wimbledon for the next 20 years, regardless of his ability?

Or if Lionel Messi was ensured a place in the Barcelona first team for the next 20 years, because he is great now. Lets use that logic. After all the big clubs will claim everyone wants to see the big sides, with the big players. So under that logic Messi should be guaranteed a place in the Barcelona first team for the next 20 years, even when he is 50, and not good enough to be in the team. If the big sides are so sure that they are the only reason people watch the European Champions League, then put your logic all the way, never change your team line up for the next 20 years. Even when you lose 15-0 to Hibernian reserves, you should still play the same line up, because 20 years ago it was a good line up. Oh but that’s different they will say, surely we should be allowed to change our team because otherwise it would be unfair to have the same players in the team regardless of who is the best player. Well surely it is unfair to have the same teams in the champions league in the future, on the basis they were good sides.

 

How on Earth can a 20 year guarantee be acceptable, when there are only 16 places available?

If you are good enough, then proove it through qualifying. What have you got to fear?

Then they will claim that they should be guaranteed financial security. Well it is not the job of European football, to ensure some clubs have an unfair advantage over the other clubs, for 20 years. It is totally corrupt, a monoploy and cartel.

Plus it is even unfair on the big sides in the big nations too.

10 years ago, Manchester City, and PSG, would not have been in this elite 16, yet under such guaranteed places, they would not be able to qualify, while an older weaker power would be, simply because they were strong clubs for longer. 100 years ago Motherwell were better than Real Madrid. So does that mean Real Madrid should be stopped from playing in the Champions league and replaced by Motherwell. It is utter nonsense.

Plus this idea of saying domestic leagues remain the same, but the champions league is replaced, by a trophy is even more unfair on smaller nations. All this is about the big nations being guaranteed, an elite place in the later stages of European trophies, while almost impossible chances for winning the top European trophies is available to smaller nation club sides.

All the criticisms of this super league will be from the perspective of clubs in the big leagues.  It is utter nonsense.

In my view there is nothing wrong with saying there should be elite clubs in European football. It is glamorous, and exotic to have elite clubs, but they should prove that from year to year, with what is on the pitch. After all if they really feel big players should be kept in the league even when they are not good enough, then put your logic where your logic is, and only pick the same blooming team for the next 20 years.

But the real issue is, should be it should be open for clubs from any nation to achieve that place? Otherwise football will end up like smaller sports, that ensure only an elite few of nations can qualify for the later stages of international club or international trophies.

 

If there is going to be a European Super League.

A far fairer system, would be an open league system, with promotion and relegation, and instead of domestic leagues.

The top division would be a 16 team European Premier, that all teams from any country, in Europe, can work their way up to, be it Spain, or Slovakia.

Then below that 3 tiers of west, and east divisions of 16 teams.

So that in each tier, there are 2 divisions of  west and east.

And, a east and west tier 3.

Then below that a west and east, tier 4 set up.

 

This would be  64 sides.

I think there is easily 64 sides sides in Europe, big enough to play in European Super Leagues, especially with the lower 3 tiers being regionalised to east and west.

There would be a pyramid system below the European Super League with relegation for the bottom two teams back to their national leagues. And a qualification tournament of national champions to qualify for the tier 4 of the European Super League tier 4.

Plus teams from the European Super Leagues would still compete in the national cup trophies, to give support to their national associations.

Plus there could be European knockout cups, on top of this, with a lower division, and top division knockout cup.

This would ensure that teams from any part of Europe could join the elites, it would be open to teams proving that they are in the elites.

It is not the job of Uefa to ensure only clubs from big nations can succeed.

It is not the job of European football to entrench an elite set of clubs, with little chance of other clubs joining the elite. It is a joke to claim that should be the case. After all Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland were the first 4 teams to play international football, does that mean the World Cup should just be those 4 teams playing each other, forever. It is an utter nonsense, to choose one point in time as the stagnant basis of who should always be Europe’s elite clubs.

It is not the job of European football to give a monopoly to the present elite clubs, or nations. If you are good enough prove it every year, not a guaranteed place.

Andy Murray used to be number one in the world, but now he is struggling, does that mean, that in 10 years time, he should be given a bye to the quarter final stages of the US Open, because he once won it?

If the elite clubs from the big nations can be guaranteed places in the Super league. Then why do domestic leagues not guarantee them places in their top divisions.

Have the Spanish league ensured that Real Madrid can never be relegated, even if they are bottom with 0 points?

Have the English guaranteed that Man Utd, Chelsea, and Liverpool can never be relegated? So why should that be the case for European football trophies? It is pitiful that some clubs think they can ride rough shot over clubs from other nations, and entrench what is purely a time imposed cartel, totally against the framework of European promotion and relegation.

The problem is the critics of this idea will only be based on what is right for the big leagues.

The claim will be made that the European Champions League has been won by sides from only the big nations, for the last 20 years, but that is the whole problem with modern European club football, it is not something to entrench further, and claim that is good for everyone, when it is painterly not, OK for the smaller nations. Having only clubs from the big nations do well, will turn football into even more of a cartel, than it is now. Plus if you are so sure that only clubs from big nations are good enough then give us the same chance and prove it.

I totally accept that there will be elite clubs, and elite leagues, but they should prove that every year, with promotion, and relegation, open to all teams. I love their being elite clubs that we will all watch, but that should be open to other sides to take the places of sides that have stagnated.

And why on Earth would anyone have invested in Man City, or PSG, if they knew that there were only a handful of places open to new teams each year?

Why would someone invest in clubs from smaller nations if they knew they could never reach the top?

Even the Scottish League, does not have a rule that Celtic and Rangers cannot be relegated.

Yes they get rewards for their huge support, and league positions, but even Scotland does not say they can never be relegated from the Premier.

If this rule was in place 20 years ago, the elite teams would include Ajax, and Dyanmo Kiev,  as not being able to be relegated for 20 years. Why?

Finally let me reiterate. -

EUROPEAN FOOTBALL IS NOT A CARTEL TO SET THE PRESENT ELITE CLUBS AS ELITE CLUBS, OR NATIONS, FOR ALL TIME.

Some people will only be happy when there are only 16 clubs in the entire continent of Europe, and all the other clubs can shut down, because football outside the elite clubs is not worth bothering about, in their arrogant view.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

f**k Europe.  A UK superleague is what we need. They should just make it like Star Soccer from the good old days of the ZX Spectrum (16K).

 

[drs]

[Northboy]

In reality if a group of big clubs want to form a European Super League then it is going to happen. UEFA/FIFA may well threaten penalties but experience in other sports shows that top level breakaways tend to become the established norm. I've considered a European Super League as inevitable for some time. The challenge for football as a whole is to ensure that a Super League is structured so that any club from any country has the possibility to reach if they can.

[Booker-T]

3 hours ago, IceCoolSuperStud said:

European Super League Proposals.

I read with interest about the modern proposals for a European Super League.

But I think the idea of having 16 teams, with guaranteed places for some sides is totally wrong and unacceptable. It is a cartel of dominant clubs, and nations, locking out other challengers, agains the spirit of competition. This idea of the present big clubs being guaranteed a place in the European Super League for 20 years is disgusting, corrupt, and a disgrace.

 

Unfair on small nations and clubs in the big nations outside the elite clubs who want to join the elite.

Why should the big nations be guaranteed places in the the league, with small nations kept out? This will further entrench big nations as having a dominant monopoly affect on Europe. If the big clubs are good enough, then they should proove it by qualifying for the Super League, each season?

If they are not good enough, that is their fault, and should not be ensured a place they do not deserve.

Queens Park, of Glasgow, Scotland, were once one of the top sides in World football, does that mean they should be guaranteed a place in the European Super League, because they were good in the 19th century?

How would you feel if the big nations were guaranteed places in the World Cup? Or with Brazil or Germany, ensured a place in the Quarter Final, for the next 20 years?  It is nonsense. Or if Roger Federer was guaranteed a place in Wimbledon for the next 20 years, regardless of his ability?

Or if Lionel Messi was ensured a place in the Barcelona first team for the next 20 years, because he is great now. Lets use that logic. After all the big clubs will claim everyone wants to see the big sides, with the big players. So under that logic Messi should be guaranteed a place in the Barcelona first team for the next 20 years, even when he is 50, and not good enough to be in the team. If the big sides are so sure that they are the only reason people watch the European Champions League, then put your logic all the way, never change your team line up for the next 20 years. Even when you lose 15-0 to Hibernian reserves, you should still play the same line up, because 20 years ago it was a good line up. Oh but that’s different they will say, surely we should be allowed to change our team because otherwise it would be unfair to have the same players in the team regardless of who is the best player. Well surely it is unfair to have the same teams in the champions league in the future, on the basis they were good sides.

 

How on Earth can a 20 year guarantee be acceptable, when there are only 16 places available?

If you are good enough, then proove it through qualifying. What have you got to fear?

Then they will claim that they should be guaranteed financial security. Well it is not the job of European football, to ensure some clubs have an unfair advantage over the other clubs, for 20 years. It is totally corrupt, a monoploy and cartel.

Plus it is even unfair on the big sides in the big nations too.

10 years ago, Manchester City, and PSG, would not have been in this elite 16, yet under such guaranteed places, they would not be able to qualify, while an older weaker power would be, simply because they were strong clubs for longer. 100 years ago Motherwell were better than Real Madrid. So does that mean Real Madrid should be stopped from playing in the Champions league and replaced by Motherwell. It is utter nonsense.

Plus this idea of saying domestic leagues remain the same, but the champions league is replaced, by a trophy is even more unfair on smaller nations. All this is about the big nations being guaranteed, an elite place in the later stages of European trophies, while almost impossible chances for winning the top European trophies is available to smaller nation club sides.

All the criticisms of this super league will be from the perspective of clubs in the big leagues.  It is utter nonsense.

In my view there is nothing wrong with saying there should be elite clubs in European football. It is glamorous, and exotic to have elite clubs, but they should prove that from year to year, with what is on the pitch. After all if they really feel big players should be kept in the league even when they are not good enough, then put your logic where your logic is, and only pick the same blooming team for the next 20 years.

But the real issue is, should be it should be open for clubs from any nation to achieve that place? Otherwise football will end up like smaller sports, that ensure only an elite few of nations can qualify for the later stages of international club or international trophies.

 

If there is going to be a European Super League.

A far fairer system, would be an open league system, with promotion and relegation, and instead of domestic leagues.

The top division would be a 16 team European Premier, that all teams from any country, in Europe, can work their way up to, be it Spain, or Slovakia.

Then below that 3 tiers of west, and east divisions of 16 teams.

So that in each tier, there are 2 divisions of  west and east.

And, a east and west tier 3.

Then below that a west and east, tier 4 set up.

 

This would be  64 sides.

I think there is easily 64 sides sides in Europe, big enough to play in European Super Leagues, especially with the lower 3 tiers being regionalised to east and west.

There would be a pyramid system below the European Super League with relegation for the bottom two teams back to their national leagues. And a qualification tournament of national champions to qualify for the tier 4 of the European Super League tier 4.

Plus teams from the European Super Leagues would still compete in the national cup trophies, to give support to their national associations.

Plus there could be European knockout cups, on top of this, with a lower division, and top division knockout cup.

This would ensure that teams from any part of Europe could join the elites, it would be open to teams proving that they are in the elites.

It is not the job of Uefa to ensure only clubs from big nations can succeed.

It is not the job of European football to entrench an elite set of clubs, with little chance of other clubs joining the elite. It is a joke to claim that should be the case. After all Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland were the first 4 teams to play international football, does that mean the World Cup should just be those 4 teams playing each other, forever. It is an utter nonsense, to choose one point in time as the stagnant basis of who should always be Europe’s elite clubs.

It is not the job of European football to give a monopoly to the present elite clubs, or nations. If you are good enough prove it every year, not a guaranteed place.

Andy Murray used to be number one in the world, but now he is struggling, does that mean, that in 10 years time, he should be given a bye to the quarter final stages of the US Open, because he once won it?

If the elite clubs from the big nations can be guaranteed places in the Super league. Then why do domestic leagues not guarantee them places in their top divisions.

Have the Spanish league ensured that Real Madrid can never be relegated, even if they are bottom with 0 points?

Have the English guaranteed that Man Utd, Chelsea, and Liverpool can never be relegated? So why should that be the case for European football trophies? It is pitiful that some clubs think they can ride rough shot over clubs from other nations, and entrench what is purely a time imposed cartel, totally against the framework of European promotion and relegation.

The problem is the critics of this idea will only be based on what is right for the big leagues.

The claim will be made that the European Champions League has been won by sides from only the big nations, for the last 20 years, but that is the whole problem with modern European club football, it is not something to entrench further, and claim that is good for everyone, when it is painterly not, OK for the smaller nations. Having only clubs from the big nations do well, will turn football into even more of a cartel, than it is now. Plus if you are so sure that only clubs from big nations are good enough then give us the same chance and prove it.

I totally accept that there will be elite clubs, and elite leagues, but they should prove that every year, with promotion, and relegation, open to all teams. I love their being elite clubs that we will all watch, but that should be open to other sides to take the places of sides that have stagnated.

And why on Earth would anyone have invested in Man City, or PSG, if they knew that there were only a handful of places open to new teams each year?

Why would someone invest in clubs from smaller nations if they knew they could never reach the top?

Even the Scottish League, does not have a rule that Celtic and Rangers cannot be relegated.

Yes they get rewards for their huge support, and league positions, but even Scotland does not say they can never be relegated from the Premier.

If this rule was in place 20 years ago, the elite teams would include Ajax, and Dyanmo Kiev,  as not being able to be relegated for 20 years. Why?

Finally let me reiterate. -

EUROPEAN FOOTBALL IS NOT A CARTEL TO SET THE PRESENT ELITE CLUBS AS ELITE CLUBS, OR NATIONS, FOR ALL TIME.

Some people will only be happy when there are only 16 clubs in the entire continent of Europe, and all the other clubs can shut down, because football outside the elite clubs is not worth bothering about, in their arrogant view.

Football Manager 2019 editor forum for this pish

[charger29]

More news on this from the English FA report from yesterday. It's difficult to say when this will happen but it's being pushed at every new cycle of TV rights.

UEFA is undertaking a period of consultation to discuss proposals which would result in significant changes to the European club competition structure from 2024. The proposal would expand the third European club competition (UEFA Europa Conference League to be introduced in 2021 with 32 teams) resulting in the following structure:

1. UEFA Champions League would comprise 32 teams and would initially be selected based on club domestic rankings in the previous four seasons (2020/21 – 2023/24). Beyond the first season, it would only be possible to enter this League by reaching the semi-finals of League Two or winning a domestic league (the maximum country cap of five clubs remains).
2. UEFA Europa League would comprise 32 teams and would also be selected based on domestic rankings in the previous four seasons. Beyond the first season, entry to this League would be reached by reaching the semi-finals of League Three or qualifying via a club’s domestic league position.
3. UEFA Europa Conference League would comprise 64 teams and would be selected based on domestic league position.
The aim of this proposal is to drive increased revenue opportunities, protect elite European club revenue streams, and meet the demands of a growing, international audience; however it would result in additional matches for English clubs (eight additional match days) in an already heavily-congested schedule, and would reduce the competition for a ‘top four’ finish in the Premier League, which has become a key feature among the ‘big six’ English clubs.

Eight additional matchdays presumably means 4 groups of 8 teams in the CL and possibly EL. If they really want this to happen then this seems like a stupid way of going about it. They're putting extra hurdles in the way. Money obviously comes first though.

[ahemps]

I think it's no secret that Barcelona and some other clubs want the champions league moved to Saturdays as they can get a bigger global audience. That would ultimately mean there league games played during the week. That might be the next step.

In some ways a European super league would be a good thing. It bores me that almost every league in Europe is now a foregone conclusion, PSG, Juventus, Bayern, Real/Barca. I used to think a monopoly on the league was a problem for us and maybe Holland, Portugal and some others but these bigger leagues did offer some genuine competition. Maybe a super league would mean these bigger teams have a super league with genuine competition but also all the other leagues without these clubs could become competitive again.

[charger29]

4 hours ago, ahemps said:

I think it's no secret that Barcelona and some other clubs want the champions league moved to Saturdays as they can get a bigger global audience. That would ultimately mean there league games played during the week. That might be the next step.

In some ways a European super league would be a good thing. It bores me that almost every league in Europe is now a foregone conclusion, PSG, Juventus, Bayern, Real/Barca. I used to think a monopoly on the league was a problem for us and maybe Holland, Portugal and some others but these bigger leagues did offer some genuine competition. Maybe a super league would mean these bigger teams have a super league with genuine competition but also all the other leagues without these clubs could become competitive again.

Those large clubs won't disappear from the domestic game. They'll just end up hanging about like a bad smell in a similar sort of way to how the cup competitions are treated.

There's going to be a lot going on for the next few years in a post Covid-19 landscape + a winter WC to come as well. I'm not sure if this will help or slow down the push for a Super League. TV rights will likely be lower than expected over the next few years as TV companies can't commit that amount of money any more.
Who knows what global football will look like in 15 years.

[weeto]

I could see a system more like basketball where clubs can get a licence to play Euroleague for a period of time and failure to maintain standards on and off court can lead to replacements. I could see a 64 club Super League and other tournaments played underneath this with the potential of the clubs from those other tournaments either being promoted in directly or for it to be at least a measuring stick for movement between levels

[bluearmyfaction]

I'd love a Euroleague.  Imagine who would be in it.  You could fill it just from England, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy:

-Man City, Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea;

-Bayern, Borussia Dortmund, RB Leipzig;

-PSG, Marseilles, Lyon, Monaco;

-Real Madrid, Atletico, Barcelona, Valencia;

-Inter, Milan, Roma, Napoli, Juventus.

 

20 clubs right there, which means no chance of playing in domestic competitions.  And they'd cartel it up to protect it from competition.

After a decade, how exciting is Monaco v Napoli for 17th place going to be to the telly audience?  And where would the Man U gloryhunters go if they went a decade with no trophies because they're mired in Euro-mid-table?

Meanwhile, the rest of Europe could enjoy a European Cup which would still have big names like Benfica and Ajax, and would open up competition to well-supported clubs like Newcastle or Union Berlin. 

That's why I don't think it would ever happen, but UEFA doesn't dare to call the big clubs' bluff.

[ahemps]

13 hours ago, bluearmyfaction said:

I'd love a Euroleague.  Imagine who would be in it.  You could fill it just from England, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy:

-Man City, Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea;

-Bayern, Borussia Dortmund, RB Leipzig;

-PSG, Marseilles, Lyon, Monaco;

-Real Madrid, Atletico, Barcelona, Valencia;

-Inter, Milan, Roma, Napoli, Juventus.

 

20 clubs right there, which means no chance of playing in domestic competitions.  And they'd cartel it up to protect it from competition.

After a decade, how exciting is Monaco v Napoli for 17th place going to be to the telly audience?  And where would the Man U gloryhunters go if they went a decade with no trophies because they're mired in Euro-mid-table?

Meanwhile, the rest of Europe could enjoy a European Cup which would still have big names like Benfica and Ajax, and would open up competition to well-supported clubs like Newcastle or Union Berlin. 

That's why I don't think it would ever happen, but UEFA doesn't dare to call the big clubs' bluff.

I doubt the clubs would go all in to a European league straight off, they are currently just trying to make the champions league a much more closed shop for the above teams (plus a few others). 

What I don't get is some of these clubs are doing well right now but haven't been among the established top teams in their leagues for that long. Had you done this 5 years ago would Man City be in the question? Give it another 5 years and will Newcastle with their money be in the running? 

RB Leipzig before Schalke, Monchengladbach or Hamburg????

No Liverpool or AC Milan?

You're right that UEFA aren't calling their bluff but these big clubs are slowly becoming bigger and more powerful than UEFA and every time UEFA give them a wee bit more in terms of money and allocated slots then they continue to get bigger. The animal is out the cage so to speak and they can't get it back in.

 

[Brummo]

Well this seems to be back on the agenda. I wonder how the OF feel about being excluded from the top table? Prior to the globalisation of the EPL and the crazy money paid for TV rights that rendered Scottish football a backwater, they would have regarded themselves as just as big clubs as Man Utd or Liverpool.

There are laws to deal with monopolies and other forms of unfair competition in other areas of business. Should football be treated any differently, if big business is forming a cartel which preserves the fat cats and effectively excludes competition from outside the chosen few?

[stm]

On 29/11/2018 at 11:58, IceCoolSuperStud said:

European Super League Proposals.

I read with interest about the modern proposals for a European Super League.

But I think the idea of having 16 teams, with guaranteed places for some sides is totally wrong and unacceptable. It is a cartel of dominant clubs, and nations, locking out other challengers, agains the spirit of competition. This idea of the present big clubs being guaranteed a place in the European Super League for 20 years is disgusting, corrupt, and a disgrace.

 

Unfair on small nations and clubs in the big nations outside the elite clubs who want to join the elite.

Why should the big nations be guaranteed places in the the league, with small nations kept out? This will further entrench big nations as having a dominant monopoly affect on Europe. If the big clubs are good enough, then they should proove it by qualifying for the Super League, each season?

If they are not good enough, that is their fault, and should not be ensured a place they do not deserve.

Queens Park, of Glasgow, Scotland, were once one of the top sides in World football, does that mean they should be guaranteed a place in the European Super League, because they were good in the 19th century?

How would you feel if the big nations were guaranteed places in the World Cup? Or with Brazil or Germany, ensured a place in the Quarter Final, for the next 20 years?  It is nonsense. Or if Roger Federer was guaranteed a place in Wimbledon for the next 20 years, regardless of his ability?

Or if Lionel Messi was ensured a place in the Barcelona first team for the next 20 years, because he is great now. Lets use that logic. After all the big clubs will claim everyone wants to see the big sides, with the big players. So under that logic Messi should be guaranteed a place in the Barcelona first team for the next 20 years, even when he is 50, and not good enough to be in the team. If the big sides are so sure that they are the only reason people watch the European Champions League, then put your logic all the way, never change your team line up for the next 20 years. Even when you lose 15-0 to Hibernian reserves, you should still play the same line up, because 20 years ago it was a good line up. Oh but that’s different they will say, surely we should be allowed to change our team because otherwise it would be unfair to have the same players in the team regardless of who is the best player. Well surely it is unfair to have the same teams in the champions league in the future, on the basis they were good sides.

 

How on Earth can a 20 year guarantee be acceptable, when there are only 16 places available?

If you are good enough, then proove it through qualifying. What have you got to fear?

Then they will claim that they should be guaranteed financial security. Well it is not the job of European football, to ensure some clubs have an unfair advantage over the other clubs, for 20 years. It is totally corrupt, a monoploy and cartel.

Plus it is even unfair on the big sides in the big nations too.

10 years ago, Manchester City, and PSG, would not have been in this elite 16, yet under such guaranteed places, they would not be able to qualify, while an older weaker power would be, simply because they were strong clubs for longer. 100 years ago Motherwell were better than Real Madrid. So does that mean Real Madrid should be stopped from playing in the Champions league and replaced by Motherwell. It is utter nonsense.

Plus this idea of saying domestic leagues remain the same, but the champions league is replaced, by a trophy is even more unfair on smaller nations. All this is about the big nations being guaranteed, an elite place in the later stages of European trophies, while almost impossible chances for winning the top European trophies is available to smaller nation club sides.

All the criticisms of this super league will be from the perspective of clubs in the big leagues.  It is utter nonsense.

In my view there is nothing wrong with saying there should be elite clubs in European football. It is glamorous, and exotic to have elite clubs, but they should prove that from year to year, with what is on the pitch. After all if they really feel big players should be kept in the league even when they are not good enough, then put your logic where your logic is, and only pick the same blooming team for the next 20 years.

But the real issue is, should be it should be open for clubs from any nation to achieve that place? Otherwise football will end up like smaller sports, that ensure only an elite few of nations can qualify for the later stages of international club or international trophies.

 

If there is going to be a European Super League.

A far fairer system, would be an open league system, with promotion and relegation, and instead of domestic leagues.

The top division would be a 16 team European Premier, that all teams from any country, in Europe, can work their way up to, be it Spain, or Slovakia.

Then below that 3 tiers of west, and east divisions of 16 teams.

So that in each tier, there are 2 divisions of  west and east.

And, a east and west tier 3.

Then below that a west and east, tier 4 set up.

 

This would be  64 sides.

I think there is easily 64 sides sides in Europe, big enough to play in European Super Leagues, especially with the lower 3 tiers being regionalised to east and west.

There would be a pyramid system below the European Super League with relegation for the bottom two teams back to their national leagues. And a qualification tournament of national champions to qualify for the tier 4 of the European Super League tier 4.

Plus teams from the European Super Leagues would still compete in the national cup trophies, to give support to their national associations.

Plus there could be European knockout cups, on top of this, with a lower division, and top division knockout cup.

This would ensure that teams from any part of Europe could join the elites, it would be open to teams proving that they are in the elites.

It is not the job of Uefa to ensure only clubs from big nations can succeed.

It is not the job of European football to entrench an elite set of clubs, with little chance of other clubs joining the elite. It is a joke to claim that should be the case. After all Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland were the first 4 teams to play international football, does that mean the World Cup should just be those 4 teams playing each other, forever. It is an utter nonsense, to choose one point in time as the stagnant basis of who should always be Europe’s elite clubs.

It is not the job of European football to give a monopoly to the present elite clubs, or nations. If you are good enough prove it every year, not a guaranteed place.

Andy Murray used to be number one in the world, but now he is struggling, does that mean, that in 10 years time, he should be given a bye to the quarter final stages of the US Open, because he once won it?

If the elite clubs from the big nations can be guaranteed places in the Super league. Then why do domestic leagues not guarantee them places in their top divisions.

Have the Spanish league ensured that Real Madrid can never be relegated, even if they are bottom with 0 points?

Have the English guaranteed that Man Utd, Chelsea, and Liverpool can never be relegated? So why should that be the case for European football trophies? It is pitiful that some clubs think they can ride rough shot over clubs from other nations, and entrench what is purely a time imposed cartel, totally against the framework of European promotion and relegation.

The problem is the critics of this idea will only be based on what is right for the big leagues.

The claim will be made that the European Champions League has been won by sides from only the big nations, for the last 20 years, but that is the whole problem with modern European club football, it is not something to entrench further, and claim that is good for everyone, when it is painterly not, OK for the smaller nations. Having only clubs from the big nations do well, will turn football into even more of a cartel, than it is now. Plus if you are so sure that only clubs from big nations are good enough then give us the same chance and prove it.

I totally accept that there will be elite clubs, and elite leagues, but they should prove that every year, with promotion, and relegation, open to all teams. I love their being elite clubs that we will all watch, but that should be open to other sides to take the places of sides that have stagnated.

And why on Earth would anyone have invested in Man City, or PSG, if they knew that there were only a handful of places open to new teams each year?

Why would someone invest in clubs from smaller nations if they knew they could never reach the top?

Even the Scottish League, does not have a rule that Celtic and Rangers cannot be relegated.

Yes they get rewards for their huge support, and league positions, but even Scotland does not say they can never be relegated from the Premier.

If this rule was in place 20 years ago, the elite teams would include Ajax, and Dyanmo Kiev,  as not being able to be relegated for 20 years. Why?

Finally let me reiterate. -

EUROPEAN FOOTBALL IS NOT A CARTEL TO SET THE PRESENT ELITE CLUBS AS ELITE CLUBS, OR NATIONS, FOR ALL TIME.

Some people will only be happy when there are only 16 clubs in the entire continent of Europe, and all the other clubs can shut down, because football outside the elite clubs is not worth bothering about, in their arrogant view.

I don't know about your sexual performances but may I suggest that you reconsider the IceCool part of your name.

[NotThePars]

50 minutes ago, stm said:

I don't know about your sexual performances but may I suggest that you reconsider the IceCool part of your name.

I'm sure the guy who hasn't posted here in like 2 and a half hours will feel suitably owned by this.

[Sergeant Wilson]

On 19/04/2021 at 18:08, NotThePars said:

I'm sure the guy who hasn't posted here in like 2 and a half hours will feel suitably owned by this.

He posts the same shite under multiple user names across various threads. All about league formats and cross border cups and all in intricate, bizarre detail.