2020/21 Soccer Thread: Messxit?

Mr Bismarck wrote:
Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli to @CorSport:
"The Super League simulates what young people do on digital platforms in competition with Call of Duty, FIFA or Fortnite."

Says the chairman of... checks notes... “Piemonte Calcio” on FIFA and “Zebre” on Football Manager.

If only we could work out why kids who don't see your name in the most popular football games and can't afford €60-a-month subscription packages to watch your games are disconnecting from Juve!

Such a great point Mr. Bismarck... so great I'm going to steal it.

salary cap time?

karmajay wrote:

salary cap time?

One of the parts of the Super League proposal was a salary cap.

I'd rather not see the people who actually deliver the entertainment get their wages constrained so billionaires can have greater profits.

karmajay wrote:

salary cap time?

It's more complex than that. The problem is, as much as all fans moan about the unfairness of it all, if a middle-eastern state comes in with unlimited funds there isn't one fan of that team more than prepared to turn a complete blind eye to that influx of money if it means their team get's propelled into that top tier. I live in Newcastle, believe me I know.

So you have to think about how to balance the wants of fans to have at least some competition, the wants of owners who want to make as much money as possible out of it all - after all, if most people globally support just a handful of teams, and they generate the most money for the leagues they play in, why shouldn't they have a larger cut of money? (their logic, not entirely mine) and then the wants of the authorities who have to at least try to balance it all "for the good of the game" and lining their own pockets.

There will need to be some sort of leveling process. There just isn't the money to get every club in Europe to level up, so the elite clubs will have to level down. There are plenty of fans out there outraged at the moment for sure - across all clubs, for very good reasons - but there is going to be an almighty backlash from the elite club fans if they suddenly get told "your teams are going to have to be made worse so it's better for everyone else". Especially the Real's, Barcelona's and Juventus's of this world. If that happens, those elite clubs won't have half so much trouble getting a super league off the ground from their fans the next time.

So, want are the options? Really not a lot. You can punish the owners, but how? Fines are a gnat's fart inthe long run. Anything else punishes the clubs, and when all is said and done the ESL was entirely owner driven. The clubs - mostly - had nothing to do with it. And if you punish the clubs, you punish the fans.

Take the 50% fan ownership rule. There aren't that many fan groups out there that can suddenly afford to pay the likes of FSG or the Glazers half a billion pounds for their shares - not the mention the many legal obstacles to forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sale. And you'd have to do that for all clubs, everywhere, at the same time. What happens if those clubs don't find fan buyers for half the club? Do they get kicked out of the league? And even if they did all get bought, how long before they all go bankrupt? How do you balance that approach, and make it affordable, while maintaining the global dominance of the european leagues? Because as soon as the European leagues do that, there are plenty of less scrupulous administrations out there who'll say "come and play here, we don't have those problems and you'll be earning triple what you can earn now".

It would need external, probably political intervention, as I have said before. At a coordinated, harmonious level across the whole of Europe. I don't know if you've looked lately, but that's in short supply across Europe, even if most government wanted to get that involved, which they absolutely don't really unless it looks good politically. Boris Johnson is saying a lot right now, don't expect that to translate into actual action.

It is a very large, intractable problem that will take decades to sort out, even if the will to do that is there. Which it isn't.

I mean, beyond all that, isnt any single league salary capping itself is asking for other big leagues to come in and be like "Well we'll pay you what they won't!"?

Basically, you'd need to get several countries across Europe to all agree to a salary capping structure. And the players would likely throw a fit, for the reasons Roke mentioned.

Prederick wrote:

I mean, beyond all that, isnt any single league salary capping itself is asking for other big leagues to come in and be like "Well we'll pay you what they won't!"?

Basically, you'd need to get several countries across Europe to all agree to a salary capping structure. And the players would likely throw a fit, for the reasons Roke mentioned.

Well. That was the Superleague attempt.

I'm sure the EPL American interests would still be very happy to get a salary cap in England. I'm not sure if it's already been turned down. I've heard of past rumblings but I don't think it was ever been close. I'm sure part of the reason is the top clubs don't want to handcuff themselves when there's so many big club outside of England.

As much as the Superleague was about controlling revenue it was 100% about controlling wages. With all the major clubs under the same tent they could easily then steam roll the players with a NFL/NBA style cap.

I'd go one further that they would then also control transfers. Everyone on the outside would get gamed on transfer fees for sure.

Considering how much money even the biggest clubs lose year on year, I can absolutely see how they'd look at the NFL/NBA/MLB and feel nothing but insane jealousy.

Not turning a profit with a NFL franchise is the kind of achievement that should garner a reverse MacArthur Grant.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ezjqe43WEAgHAPP?format=jpg&name=medium)

Lifetime achievement awards in "almost getting it, but coming to the entirely wrong conclusion."

The CL are actually fairly boring once we hit the QFs because it's the same eight big clubs, year after year.

If we get really lucky, it's only seven of the same teams, and some team we all really hope wins it but loses heartbreakingly in the QFs of SFs.

The most memorable CL matches I can remember over the last 3-5 years generally involve one of the ESL teams comically gakking up a lead to go out of the tournament.

then again, I am by any estimation a "Football Hipster" so of course I'd be excited to see if friggin' Genk can lift the trophy or something.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzkKDXBWQAAkX1H?format=jpg&name=large)

A king.

I don't know what the % of money that goes to the soccer players vs owners but a salary cap by no means will mean they don't get paid. NFL and NBA players make bank, get at least 50% of the profits in that form I believe and it is something that increases parity among teams.

I just always see people complaining it is the big teams (ie rich teams) that are always in the championships (typically similar to the MLB besides the rays being magic). Salary cap is the best way to change that.

I'm pretty uneducated about the economics of soccer though. It just seems that answers most of the issues brought up in Sorbicol's post.

karmajay wrote:

I don't know what the % of money that goes to the soccer players vs owners but a salary cap by no means will mean they don't get paid. NFL and NBA players make bank, get at least 50% of the profits in that form I believe and it is something that increases parity among teams.

I just always see people complaining it is the big teams (ie rich teams) that are always in the championships (typically similar to the MLB besides the rays being magic). Salary cap is the best way to change that.

I'm pretty uneducated about the economics of soccer though. It just seems that answers most of the issues brought up in Sorbicol's post.

Tbh I don't really see any issues in Sorbicols post.

Rich clubs and owners come and go.

I actually think if the SuperLeague came to fruition it wouldn't generate the money they thought. Fans can quit btw. Even though they are irrational fanatics I'm not sure that's the soccer they want to digest.

I'd quit Arsenal flat for sure. I'm already way less engaged with them because they are not worth my time and definitely not any direct $$$.

Salary caps + parity are the bridges owners sell fans to turn a consistent profit. Parity is overrated. If you can't afford to own a club and run losses. Novel concept. Don't.

Also from Floppy's interview with el Larguero :

We have been working on this Super League project for 3 years
I think that we did not present the project well, but we were not given an opportunity to explain it well

For a small consulting fee I can show you a time when you could have explained it, Florence.

If you want parity, all you need to do is have more redistribution of revenues from bigger clubs to smaller ones, and down the pyramids.

Salary caps are just naked profiteering for billionaire owners.

That's not really true (in regards to luxury taxes). That is the way the MLB is run. The teams with the most money can handily afford to pay those types of fees AND still pay the best players the highest contracts and stack teams.

This is honestly the first time I've seen arguments that the salary cap benefits owners MORE then fans/players/parity.

Also, when I say parity I'm talking about the ability for clubs that are not top earners to have the chance to win.

karmajay wrote:

That's not really true (in regards to luxury taxes). That is the way the MLB is run. The teams with the most money can handily afford to pay those types of fees AND still pay the best players the highest contracts and stack teams.

This is honestly the first time I've seen arguments that the salary cap benefits owners MORE then fans/players/parity.

Also, when I say parity I'm talking about the ability for clubs that are not top earners to have the chance to win.

It's a common position in this thread, but I agree with you. It's not in the interests of fans to have clubs leverage themselves into double relegation. It's not in the interests of fans to only have a few clubs who can reasonably challenge for the title.

I don't really care about owners. Obviously, Perez is an ass. Many owners are. I care about my teams, and the quality of the sport. I think parity and financial stability are good for the quality of play, and the possibility of non-big six teams winning.

And before anyone says Leicester, that was one year - and by the way, they were bought by foreign owners before their meteoric rise, something EPL fans usually hate.

karmajay wrote:

I don't know what the % of money that goes to the soccer players vs owners but a salary cap by no means will mean they don't get paid. NFL and NBA players make bank, get at least 50% of the profits in that form I believe and it is something that increases parity among teams.

By reports, the MLB is staring down the barrel of a work stoppage in the near future because the players do not feel they are being fairly remunerated and the owners are laughing to the bank (EDIT: I should note, this was likely the case before COVID). If the players union had not recently signed a deal that largely benefits the owners, the NFL almost certainly would too. And they all "make bank".

LeBron James has, by any metric, been grossly underpaid throughout his career, considering his value to his teams and how much he could fetch in an uncapped free market.

The players make bank in comparison to me, but when they are the product and the owners are walking away with 10x more because the players can only earn so much to prevent Dan Snyder from giving Brock Osweiler a $650M contract, there's gonna be pushback, or every single one of the big sports wouldn't have seen work stoppages over the last 30 years due to, in no small part, players feeling that they are not being fairly paid.

We run in different circles because this is the first time I've seen anyone argue salary caps do not primarily benefit owners by preventing players from being paid A.) What they are actually worth and B.) They primarily insulate owners against their own financial irresponsibility.

I don't think they benefit players in any way. Hell, the fourth sentence of the wiki entry underlines why they don't. Whether they are a necessary evil for parity and fan interest is a different discussion.

Prederick wrote:

We run in different circles because this is the first time I've seen anyone argue salary caps do not primarily benefit owners by preventing players from being paid A.) What they are actually worth and B.) They primarily insulate owners against their own financial irresponsibility.

I don't think they benefit players in any way. Hell, the fourth sentence of the wiki entry underlines why they don't. Whether they are a necessary evil for parity and fan interest is a different discussion.

Well, it's the discussion we're having now about whether or not a salary cap would benefit soccer. What we have right now is an arms race of clubs willing to spend any amount of money in order to win, including money that they haven't got. People frequently say that many or all of the big clubs operate at a loss. That's obviously unsustainable and unhealthy. It also puts competitiveness out of reach for smaller clubs with fewer resources. As far as I can tell, everyone here follows English soccer, because at least they have a handful of competitive clubs. No one talks about how they're really praying that Juve and Bayern win their umpteenth leagues in a row.

The good news is that no soccer execs read this little corner of the internet and we're free to toss around whatever ideas we think would help the game, safe in the knowledge that our ideas will never even be considered, let alone enacted.

The thing you are all missing about the NFL and the MLB is the number of teams in those "leagues". There are 30 MLB teams. There are 32 NFL teams.

There are 89 professional football teams in England alone. I'm not including the non-league teams. Against all probability, there are 42 in Scotland, and that's before you get into the Highland leagues. Hell even Wales has 12 professional teams in their premier league.

There are 100 in Italy. 46 in France. Spain is a bit weird once you get down to the 3rd and 4th tiers of their league structure, but you could argue there are over 400. And I haven't even covered the German, Dutch, Turkish, Greek or Portuguese league structures.

Thing is, all those teams are to a greater or lesser extend getting money out of the same pot of fan base, league structures and national structures (UEFA competition etc), available TV deals and whatever else they can get their hands on. That is a hell of a lot of teams you have to spread a finite amount of resource (money) across. Yes some generate and need more than others, but unlike in the NFL and MLB where you can concentrate a lot of money across a limited number of teams, for football you're spreading a lot of money across a hell of a lot more teams.

Comparisons are a little pointless to be honest.

Interesting stuff here from a Reddit user on top of Swiss Ramble's data.

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/v5j1h4zj3ru61.png)

This is 2018/19, so that left most Premier League dot is Huddersfield Town. They got more money for finishing dead last in the Premier League than all but three teams in Europe - Barca, Real and Atleti.

Interestingly though, the line itself is very flat compared to the other leagues. As a percentage, the gap between Huddersfield and the "Super Clubs" (and Spurs) isn't large compared to the gap between the top three in La Liga and the rest.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Prederick wrote:

We run in different circles because this is the first time I've seen anyone argue salary caps do not primarily benefit owners by preventing players from being paid A.) What they are actually worth and B.) They primarily insulate owners against their own financial irresponsibility.

I don't think they benefit players in any way. Hell, the fourth sentence of the wiki entry underlines why they don't. Whether they are a necessary evil for parity and fan interest is a different discussion.

Well, it's the discussion we're having now about whether or not a salary cap would benefit soccer. What we have right now is an arms race of clubs willing to spend any amount of money in order to win, including money that they haven't got. People frequently say that many or all of the big clubs operate at a loss. That's obviously unsustainable and unhealthy. It also puts competitiveness out of reach for smaller clubs with fewer resources. As far as I can tell, everyone here follows English soccer, because at least they have a handful of competitive clubs. No one talks about how they're really praying that Juve and Bayern win their umpteenth leagues in a row.

The good news is that no soccer execs read this little corner of the internet and we're free to toss around whatever ideas we think would help the game, safe in the knowledge that our ideas will never even be considered, let alone enacted. ;)

The other leagues need more revenue sharing. Which can be referenced by:

Mr Bismarck wrote:

Interesting stuff here from a Reddit user on top of Swiss Ramble's data.

IMAGE(https://i.redd.it/v5j1h4zj3ru61.png)

This is 2018/19, so that left most Premier League dot is Huddersfield Town. They got more money for finishing dead last in the Premier League than all but three teams in Europe - Barca, Real and Atleti.

Interestingly though, the line itself is very flat compared to the other leagues. As a percentage, the gap between Huddersfield and the "Super Clubs" (and Spurs) isn't large compared to the gap between the top three in La Liga and the rest.

It might actually lead to people watching those leagues more and eyeballs means more €€€€.

If you want Parity sharing revenue is the best way not salary caps.

Which gif would we agree is most appropriate for what would happen to Florentino Perez if you said "revenue sharing" in front of him? I feel like the Arc of the Covenant one is overused.

Also, he's not going away, to be clear.

Pérez had gone into the interview on Monday with a presenter he knew would lend a sympathetic ear, the most significant of his sycophants. That would allow him to explain the ESL as he liked, but it had not been successful and did not adequately explain, still less convince. Ultimately, what was left was the extent of the crisis, that apocalyptic vision. He had said football was in “freefall”, at a “critical moment”, “ruined”.

The word he kept repeating was “save”: they had to save football. Above all, they had to save themselves. “If we don’t so something, we won’t last long,” he insisted. “In 2024, we’re dead.” And then they had watched the English clubs pull out – one was never really convinced, Pérez later claimed – the project fall down, so now what? Does this mean there are only three years left?

This, remember, was the only public appearance so far from any of the clubs, who were busy hiding behind statements. Pérez had at least fronted up, shown his face, but that may not have helped. Some partners could not believe it when they watched him. This was not the messaging they sought – humble, open to dialogue – and nor was it the image.

A super league, a huge global concern, and this was how it was presented to the world? Not with a press conference, a united front, but with one man offering a circular, unconvincing performance on a tacky late-night show on a cheap set? An appearance over 90 minutes for a generation you say won’t watch a full football match? A message that was a curious combination of the arrogance of power, messianic, and also the vulnerability of desperation? The ultimate, elite competition, a modern billion-dollar industry that would change the media and fan landscape and this is how you’re selling it?

It didn’t look like a strong, successful, unstoppable revolution; it looked weak, or worse, that line about kids not liking football instantly becoming a meme. The saviour, sinking. The emperor, naked.

That was a surprise: even Pérez’s critics attack him precisely for his success rather than his shortcomings; they criticise and covet his ability to control. He is seen as a brilliant businessman, a highly competent administrator. A billionaire who has built a huge empire, he is as powerful a man as there is in Spain, with unrivalled leverage in business, politics, the law and media as well as football, able to get whatever he wants from whoever he wants – and aware of that.

When he promised to force through the sale of the club’s former training ground at the turn of the century, he insisted: “Trust my powers of negotiation, in my good relationship with the mayor of Madrid and the head of town planning. My power of persuasion is infinitely higher than the outgoing board.”

That worked, as so much else has over wildly successful years at Madrid, made into the most powerful club on the planet, or so everyone thought. But this plan didn’t work. This project had been three years in the making but the final phases had been completed in a hurry, documents signed and promises secured under pressure. As it unravelled, much of it looks unexpectedly poorly planned, devoid of real content or unity, liable to break under pressure. Fifteen founders were in fact 12 and that coalition came apart quickly.

Things that are easily achieved and controlled in Spain proved to be more difficult elsewhere, where culture, context and power structures are different. “It wasn’t hard to persuade [the Barcelona president] Joan Laporta,” Pérez said publicly, his great rivals depicted as his dependents. He and Agnelli had thought it wasn’t hard to convince the others, too – and momentarily they had, no small feat – but the promises they made were soon broken.

The attempt to launch a breakaway league, enshrining their entitlement in perpetuity, has failed – for now at least. And that is not a feeling with which Pérez is familiar. He took the lead and risks that others didn’t, helping conduct a coup with Agnelli. Perhaps it was a miscalculation and it seems odd they did not adequately anticipate the reaction. Yet Pérez sounded baffled at the idea that anyone would not embrace this and this is a man for whom opposition, where there is any, is invariably overcome – in Spain at least, which may be part of the point.

I do find interesting how little opposition there was in Italy and especially Spain to those ideas, although I'd personally argue the fanbases there think (and for entirely good reason) that their domestic FA, UEFA and FIFA are so incorrigibly corrupt that why NOT try the super league?

And tribalism, of course.

Prederick wrote:

I do find interesting how little opposition there was in Italy and especially Spain to those ideas, although I'd personally argue the fanbases there think (and for entirely good reason) that their domestic FA, UEFA and FIFA are so incorrigibly corrupt that why NOT try the super league?

And tribalism, of course.

Oh I think there was opposition to these ideas in Spain and Italy, it just wasn't as vocal or well organized as the English fan's reaction was. Sid Lowe and Nicky Baldini cover it quite well in today's Guardian Football podcast.

Not so hot take.

Barca, Real and probably Juve but let's concentrate on the two Spanish clubs.

They needed this the most. They have been spending highly inefficiently and they just ran into the pandemic. Arsenal would be similar but what will save them over the next couple of years will be the EPL cash cow. (Assuming they don't get relegated, I'd take that if Kronke sold).

Real did get alot of money for selling their training ground. So much people at the time thought it was a crooked deal. Barca's recent financial troubles are known also.

This is all a good thing. Let them be pegged back for a couple of years. It's not like the expense side of their finances can't be fixed. It's mostly player wages. They could.... Dare the thought. Actually not over sign and over pay players. The probability of them winning the CL will go down with a weakened side but I guess that's parity?

Juve could probably balance their books just by jettisoning Ronaldo. He makes more (£28m) than the next FOUR highest earners at Juve combined.

The quite good Rafa Honigstein explains the pluses and minuses of the 50+1 rule.

Prederick wrote:

Juve could probably balance their books just by jettisoning Ronaldo. He makes more (£28m) than the next FOUR highest earners at Juve combined.

Harder to put a number on, but how much does he generate for Juve?

I remember some Football Finance chap on a radio show when Man Utd (re)signed Pogba, stating that within the first month, world-wide, ManUtd had recouped pretty much the entire £89M transfer fee in Pogba shirt sales. Who really knows how much impact having "Social Media Star Player A" at your club, influences other club-sponsors to pay more money or sign sponsorships with the club, purely because that far-reaching player plays for the club.

omni wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Juve could probably balance their books just by jettisoning Ronaldo. He makes more (£28m) than the next FOUR highest earners at Juve combined.

Harder to put a number on, but how much does he generate for Juve?

I remember some Football Finance chap on a radio show when Man Utd (re)signed Pogba, stating that within the first month, world-wide, ManUtd had recouped pretty much the entire £89M transfer fee in Pogba shirt sales. Who really knows how much impact having "Social Media Star Player A" at your club, influences other club-sponsors to pay more money or sign sponsorships with the club, purely because that far-reaching player plays for the club.

Doe what it's worth, I've seen it asserted that "big signing =shirt sale massive revenue boost" is nonsense, for what it's worth. But lesser Ronaldo probably is one of the few players who noticably moves the needle on club revenue.

Clubs not signing up for a half-baked scheme with a €150 million withdrawal penalty might also help with the whole "our finances are a tire fire, somebody who does economy please help." That's 1.25 Griezmanns!

While that will be the case for the vast majority of players, the Social Media 'Premium' players, and especially those for world-wide clubs such as Man Utd, certainly can.

https://www.sportbible.com/football/...

It has been revealed by Adidas that Manchester United shirts with 'Pogba 6' on the back have blown away records for fans purchasing them - by generating almost £200 million since the first week of August.

Obviously that's Adidas' sales, but Man U will definitely get a chunk of that, and that was only back in 2016 when he signed...

Transfer window: exposing the widely held myths about how clubs sign players

Shirt sales alone do not pay for a superstar’s transfer fee
[...]
Despite the nonsense you may have heard about Zlatan Ibrahimovic shirt sales generating £50m for Manchester United, which would far exceed his wages, it’s simply not true. In fact, United don’t even automatically receive the 10-15% industry-standard royalty payment, no doubt because the up-front £75m annual payment is so large. United’s royalty payment only kicks in once a certain number of shirts are sold.
[...]

I feel like 'we'll recoup it in shirt sales' is the line these club presidents or managers use on the owners and or fans to push these deals through.

Or 'you'll recoup this on shirt sales' - Jorge Mendes, Mino Raiola

I'm sure the person who actually has to do the books is having a laugh.