Sport Should uefa and the leagues..

[DaGaffer]

Well that's an opinion.

So Man.C & Chelsea aren't a problem, they could easily have achieved the same success
within the same time frame, without major investors and ridiculous wages ?

Germany - with the exeption of BM sure is prob among the most well balanced leagues in europe,

Italy, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Turkey, Norway, Austria, Russia, Ukraine
to name just a few, all suffer in some extent with unballanced leagues where the gap between
top 2-6 teams and the rest of the league is constantly growing.

- Infact scratch Denmark from that list - I'd actually say that denmark with the exeption of FCK has to be the most ballanced league - In the World! ;P

Except, if you actually bother to analyse it, it was always the case. Italian football, throughout its history, has been dominated by just three teams (60% of all the titles), Spain, Barca and Real have 65% of all the titles, and always did. German football was always the most even, but Bayern have still won more titles than any single English club. In England, United's recent domination is a statistical outlier, but despite the moaning of the ABUs, its not just money that made that happen, and in actual fact since the Prem started there have been ten different clubs in the CL, half the league. NB. City and Chelsea were both improving before their sugar daddies arrived. Would they have been as successful? No, but so what? They'd still have been around CL level, and if the money hadn't been invested in them it would have gone into something else. I don't care if Citeh "bought" the league last year; this year, and the travails of Chelsea, show it takes more than cash to make a consistently successful club.

 

[Olgaline]

Except, if you actually bother to analyse it, it was always the case. Italian football, throughout its history, has been dominated by just three teams (60% of all the titles), Spain, Barca and Real have 65% of all the titles, and always did.

So that somehow makes it all ok ?

City and Chelsea were both improving before their sugar daddies arrived.

not in any manner that could have gotten them even close to were they got in just a couple of years with outside help

They'd still have been around CL level

Doutfull

I don't care if Citeh "bought" the league last year

Maybe so, but I'm sure who ever ended just outside the CL - Euroleague spot does.

I get that people might have different opinions in resprect to Salary caps, if they'ed help or are nessersarily the right antidote for the problem at hand - but denying that there is an inceasing and alarming unbalance in Europe, you realy have to be a blind top club supporter not to see it. - But thats just my humble opinion.

 

[DaGaffer]

So that somehow makes it all ok ?

Yes. Your central thesis is that there's increasing imbalance in football, my counter-argument is that the facts don't actually back that up, and that historically there's always been a degree of imbalance in most European leagues.. But hey, have an irrational rant if you'd prefer.

not in any manner that could have gotten them even close to were they got in just a couple of years with outside help

Doutfull

Chelsea qualified for the CL before Ambramovich bought them (of course they also had Ken Bates to worry about). Next.

Maybe so, but I'm sure who ever ended just outside the CL - Euroleague spot does.

Losers gonna whine. I feel far more sympathy for the fans of teams like Arsenal who have genuinely been knocked off the very top by the sugar-daddy teams (and by a certain amount of management intransigence), than the various should-have-beens or never-were's who hang around the 6-10 spots. The reality is only maybe three teams outside of the CL slots would ever have had the potential to win the title if we lived in a world without oligarchs and princes; the rest were never going to do it anyway.

I get that people might have different opinions in resprect to Salary caps, if they'ed help or are nessersarily the right antidote for the problem at hand - but denying that there is an inceasing and alarming unbalance in Europe, you realy have to be a blind top club supporter not to see it. - But thats just my humble opinion.

Your humble opinion isn't worth much because it refuses to live in the real world. Salary caps wouldn't work in football for all the reasons pointed out through this thread, but you dismiss that out of hand (mainly by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la, I'm not listening"). The financial fair play rules are a better approach, but they're too easy to work around at the moment and UEFA lack the balls to really do much about it, but I can't blame them because ultimately it will come down to who has the best lawyers.

And by the way, I don't actually see an actual unbalance in Europe at all; I see a potential re-ordering of the "big" clubs, with a move of power eastwards increasingly likely, but there will still be big clubs and small clubs, just with different names, competing on a bigger stage.

 

[Raven]

No, I think the unbalanced leagues thing is overstated. Not in all leagues; Spain is a problem, but that's a problem with TV rights money distribution; elsewhere? Germany, England and Italy are fine.

Edit. And by the way, the salary cap justification I used isn't my analysis, its the justification used by the American franchise leagues themselves.

It's not just TV rights that are a problem there, it is tax dodging too. There is no way the Spanish teams and especially the top clubs can get away with avoiding so much tax, certainly not now that Spain is about to collapse.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's not just TV rights that are a problem there, it is tax dodging too. There is no way the Spanish teams and especially the top clubs can get away with avoiding so much tax, certainly not now that Spain is about to collapse.

Yes, but if the big two weren't sucking all the revenue out of the league, the other teams could probably afford to pay their taxes (endemic abuse of public funds by local councils in Spain notwithstanding).

 

[Olgaline]

facts don't actually back that up,

your facts, not all may agree, thus it's an opinion not a fact.

But hey, have an irrational rant if you'd prefer.

Finger pointing and redicule, yes very constructive indeed.

Losers gonna whine.

silly agrument

Your humble opinion isn't worth much

oh gee name calling ? bravo!

because it refuses to live in my world.

fixed that for you

but Salary caps wouldn't work in football for all the reasons pointed out through this thread,

By all means, please restate why the wouldnt work - as in constructivly - not as in cant! but as in why wouldnt it work - please!

you dismiss that out of hand (mainly by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la, I'm not listening").

Again very mature responce.... /sigh You dont even know what my opinion is on the matter of salary caps, so dont pretend to. However, unlike you I havent dismissed anything, I'm willing do discuss - You Arent! I'd even argue that you are aggressive and arrogant in your dismissal of the notion, it must be vey important to you taken the emotional investemt you seem to have in it. I am sorry if I've somehow hurt your feelings.

And by the way, I don't actually see an actual unbalance in Europe at all

Well that much is obviouse, some including me might however disagree. Your aproach to those that might disagree with you however, I must say leaves alot to be desired!

 

[Olgaline]

either way, you can shout at me all you like, but salaries are an issue within european football weather you agree or not. and it's an issue that disupts the sport all the way to the lower levels and minor leagues. Teams are forced to overpay players due to salaries being inflated up to silly hights, this inevertably forces to teams into the red and onwards in a downward spiral where clubs are forced to choose between being competative or beeing in masive debt.

The 10 most indebted clubs in European soccer collectively owe $5.74 billion between them.

The 20 English Premier League clubs have a combined debt that has spiraled to $4.45 billion. Fourteen of them lost money in 2008-09, the most recent season for which numbers are available. The financial picture is even uglier in La Liga, in which last year's 20 teams tallied $4.65 billion in debt. Just three of those Iberian bastions of soccer achieved an operating profit: Barcelona, Real Madrid and little Numancia, which was relegated as a reward for its fiscal prudence.

Among 36 teams in the two professional Dutch divisions, only four are deemed financially sound by the Dutch soccer association. Twelve of them, including fabled Feyenoord, are having their troubled finances supervised by the league. As for the other 20 clubs, the league classifies as "worrisome" their state of financial affairs.

Indeed, there's serious cause for concern about the economic state of most European soccer clubs. Huge debt, cash crunches, mismanagement -- all the warning signs are there of an economic collapse, of the dominoes falling. Soccer is eating itself. Yet for all their financial troubles, clubs continue to spend money -- often lavish sums above market price -- on players. During this summer's transfer window, the 10 most spend-happy clubs dropped a combined $711 million on new players. Several of those clubs were also on another, more troubling list: the top 10 clubs with the most debt.

Now then, are salary caps the answer ? if the goal s to limit spending, then sure why not ? it will limit spending, and that in it self would be desirable, but if the ultimate gaol is to balance out the playing field - I dont think it will. should the field be balanced ? well personally, I hope so to some extent - I have no need for it to be equvilent to the Ameican model, but it would be nice to see a football future where teams dont need to be faced with a constant threat of bankruptcy constantly having to sell tallents prematurly due to financial reasons and where the prevailing thought amongst the top clubs is that there's always someone out there to underwrite the debt you have accrued - it's ok to have top clubs, and there always will be and should be top clubs, but do they have to exist at the expence of others ? I for one dont think so.

Ah well,