It came out over the weekend that the Premier League is contemplating a playoff for the final Champions League qualification spot. Naturally, as a Liverpool fan during their worst season in recent memory, I'm conflicted.
It's little surprise that United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool are the four clubs opposed to this plan. They're the Big 4. These clubs see the Champions League as their birthright, and these four clubs have contested the places for the past four seasons. Only Everton broke up the cartel in '04-05, only to see Liverpool make the tournament by winning in Istanbul and for Everton to lose in the qualifying round.
But I'm less opposed to the plan, and, as said above, a bit conflicted.
First, let me say I'm not a fan of playoffs in principle. What's the point of the regular league season if 4th through 7th are basically meaningless? Also, the fixture list is already packed, with more and more clubs seeing players injured because of the amount they're playing for club and country. Wembley already hosts the playoff finals for the lower leagues; when will these matches be played?
But there is historical precedent for a playoff, with most leagues using the system. Promotion from the Championship, League One, and League Two are decided by playoffs, with the aforementioned finals at Wembley.
Plus, the extra games at the end of the season who preclude the ignominious Game 39 from taking place. That's a big benefit in and of itself.
Also, while this is putting the cart far ahead of the horse, you'd have to fancy Liverpool in a knockout competition for the final CL spot. The team almost always plays better with backs against the wall and in a one-game playoff, and has the European experience to not be overawed by the competition. To be honest, I'd expect the likes of Spurs, Villa, and City – this season's European contenders – to wilt under the lights, at least at the first time of asking.
Were this idea already instituted, Liverpool would have only been in the playoffs once under Benitez – in 2007/08. The other time Liverpool finished outside the top three was 04/05, and they would have made the CL as the previous year's Champions.
Here's what the playoffs would have looked like since 05/06:
'08/09: Arsenal, Everton, Villa, and Fulham.
'07/08: Liverpool, Everton, Villa, Blackburn
'06/07: Arsenal, Tottenham, Everton, Bolton
'05/06: Arsenal, Tottenham, Blackburn, Newcastle
You see a few of the same names, but no team's there for all four years. Seventh place is different every season; Blackburn and Bolton are now decidedly lower-mid table, while Newcastle's in the Championship.
As a Liverpool fan, I can see how this would hurt the club. And I truly don't like to see the regular season diminished, which this plan would do. But the idea's interesting, and would definitely change the European participants from time to time. I know Platini loves that idea.
The saddest thing is, the plan might actually help Liverpool this season, although it wouldn't be invoked for at least three seasons because of the preexisting TV deal.
The plan was proposed at a Premier League meeting last week, and we'll find out if it has any legs at the next meeting next month. Hopefully, by then, Liverpool's predicament will also be clearer.
Showing posts with label Platini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Platini. Show all posts
15 February 2010
06 May 2009
On Barcelona, Chelsea, and Andres Iniesta
I’m no expert on Spanish football, but the ubiquitous praise for Barcelona and the fact that I’ve got GolTV this season has led me to watch a substantial amount of that team. And that’s why I’m not surprised Andres Iniesta was the one who won it at the death. If you asked me to pick one player – just one – to improve Liverpool, it’d be him.
Much more willing to put in the work to run at Chelsea’s locked defense and try to make something happen (I’m looking at you, Lionel), it finally paid off when he sent a wicked toe-poke past Cech from the top of the box. He’s quick and strong, able to play anywhere along the front three, likes to have a run and shoot from distance, and can both score and set up goals. There’s absolutely zero, ZERO chance he’s leaving Barcelona, but he’s a player I’ve come to adore watching.
Today’s was an amazing game in a number of ways. It’s incredibly harsh on Chelsea – I almost empathize, and then, remembering the team, break out in a mischievous smile. I delight in schadenfreude far too much. Plus, Chelsea’s hysterics after the final whistle – culminating with Drogba hypocritical enough to call someone else a disgrace – were the icing on the cake.
But they’re not kidding when claiming four penalties weren’t given. Two out of the four were seemed stonewall – a free kick given outside the box for a foul that was inside (I’ll buy that it wasn’t a foul, but if you’re giving it, it was clearly in the area), and aMarquez Pique handball, which even if it was incidental, prevented Anelka from getting through. But thems the breaks. Abidal’s red card was never a red, so it’s not as if the ref gave them all to Barca. However, I am 100% open to conspiracy theories involving Platini not wanting a repeat of last year’s final, especially one comprised of two English teams.
Even though it was anti-football at times, I thought it completely compelling. Chelsea simply would not break down – and Lampard and Essien were fantastic. Granted, Barca had no plan C – plan A was pass through the middle and bring Messi in (and there was no space for either), and plan B was Alves crosses in from the right (and he was off all night long). But Chelsea played the stunting, stifling game that always seems to work for English clubs.
This is the first time an English club has been knocked out by a non-English side since Liverpool lost to AC Milan in the 2007 final. Last year, Liverpool dumped out Arsenal in the quarters, Chelsea dumped out Liverpool in the semis, and United won damn thing. This season, Chelsea put out Liverpool and United beat Arsenal. This is why I seriously wouldn’t put it past Platini to fix this game.
And Chelsea’s solitary goal was one that deserved to win any match. I’m probably forgetful in the heat of the moment, but Essien’s might be the best non-Liverpool strike I’ve ever seen (I am too biased to judge otherwise). So what if he couldn’t do it again. Volley with his weaker foot from 25 yards, and hit so perfectly that the keeper has no chance. Simply stunning.
But at the end of the day, a one-goal lead is never enough, as Liverpool’s proven before. Fix or no fix (I haven’t decided yet if I’m kidding), it sets up the final I’d much rather see. That it ends with such a stomach punch amuses me – I admit, I’m a petty, petty man who holds grudges.
But it sucks that Barcelona will be missing Marquez, Alves, and Abidal in the final – if today is any guide, the best bet will be to soak up pressure and attack on the counter, probably targeting the flanks with Puyol coming back and both fullbacks out. Which, sadly, is just how United prefers to play.
Much more willing to put in the work to run at Chelsea’s locked defense and try to make something happen (I’m looking at you, Lionel), it finally paid off when he sent a wicked toe-poke past Cech from the top of the box. He’s quick and strong, able to play anywhere along the front three, likes to have a run and shoot from distance, and can both score and set up goals. There’s absolutely zero, ZERO chance he’s leaving Barcelona, but he’s a player I’ve come to adore watching.
Today’s was an amazing game in a number of ways. It’s incredibly harsh on Chelsea – I almost empathize, and then, remembering the team, break out in a mischievous smile. I delight in schadenfreude far too much. Plus, Chelsea’s hysterics after the final whistle – culminating with Drogba hypocritical enough to call someone else a disgrace – were the icing on the cake.
But they’re not kidding when claiming four penalties weren’t given. Two out of the four were seemed stonewall – a free kick given outside the box for a foul that was inside (I’ll buy that it wasn’t a foul, but if you’re giving it, it was clearly in the area), and a
Even though it was anti-football at times, I thought it completely compelling. Chelsea simply would not break down – and Lampard and Essien were fantastic. Granted, Barca had no plan C – plan A was pass through the middle and bring Messi in (and there was no space for either), and plan B was Alves crosses in from the right (and he was off all night long). But Chelsea played the stunting, stifling game that always seems to work for English clubs.
This is the first time an English club has been knocked out by a non-English side since Liverpool lost to AC Milan in the 2007 final. Last year, Liverpool dumped out Arsenal in the quarters, Chelsea dumped out Liverpool in the semis, and United won damn thing. This season, Chelsea put out Liverpool and United beat Arsenal. This is why I seriously wouldn’t put it past Platini to fix this game.
And Chelsea’s solitary goal was one that deserved to win any match. I’m probably forgetful in the heat of the moment, but Essien’s might be the best non-Liverpool strike I’ve ever seen (I am too biased to judge otherwise). So what if he couldn’t do it again. Volley with his weaker foot from 25 yards, and hit so perfectly that the keeper has no chance. Simply stunning.
But at the end of the day, a one-goal lead is never enough, as Liverpool’s proven before. Fix or no fix (I haven’t decided yet if I’m kidding), it sets up the final I’d much rather see. That it ends with such a stomach punch amuses me – I admit, I’m a petty, petty man who holds grudges.
But it sucks that Barcelona will be missing Marquez, Alves, and Abidal in the final – if today is any guide, the best bet will be to soak up pressure and attack on the counter, probably targeting the flanks with Puyol coming back and both fullbacks out. Which, sadly, is just how United prefers to play.
27 May 2008
FIFA’s 6+5 rule, a new low for England, and Liverpool FC
Headline news on BBC Sport shows both FIFA’s insistence in pushing a 6+5 rule as well as a study stating that Premiership teams fielded an all-time low number of English players this past season.
My silence thanks to a lack of topics during the past week, coupled with a fervent dislike of the 6+5 rule (plus a fondness for poking and prodding Blatter’s FIFA), means I’m using these two stories to hit at a larger issue. Fair warning, this is long.
I guess I’ll start with FIFA.
For those unaware, FIFA has been trying to cut down on foreign players since the beginning of Blatter’s reign. The newest manifestation of this pursuit is the aforementioned “6+5 rule,” which looks to be endorsed by FIFA’s Congress later this week.
As demonstrated by the name, the rule moves towards a goal of at least six “homegrown” players in every club side, leaving no more than five foreigners. According to Blatter, it would be implemented step-by-step, with four required in 2010/11, five in 2011/12, and six by 2012.
It’s worth noting that there are differences between FIFA and UEFA’s definition of homegrown players. FIFA’s means those eligible for that country’s national team while UEFA’s means those trained a club as teenagers. As Reuters explains:
Loath as I am to prefer anything Platini suggests, I’m far more in favor of his version if one has to take hold, mainly because it would protect teams like Liverpool who scour the globe for young players and train them in their academies. But it also contravenes the exact point Blatter is trying to make: FIFA wants club leagues to be primarily made up of players from that country and Platini’s plan doesn’t do that. Players like Fabregas, who joined Arsenal at 16, would qualify as homegrown. Although article after article, especially those put out by FIFA’s press shop, states that Platini would go along with FIFA’s plan.
According to FIFA, the rule wouldn’t violate European law because it doesn’t restrict the free movement of workers. Clubs are still able to buy as many foreigners as they like, but they’d have to have six players on the pitch eligible for that country’s national team.
Of course, the European Union has been hinting differently and earlier this month the European Parliament voted 518-49 against the FIFA proposal, with a majority backing UEFA’s proposal (and we in the US complain about Congress getting involved in sports).
This news comes hand-in-hand with a study stating the number of English players in the Premier League is at an all-time low, and it seems more than coincidence that both stories came out on the same day.
According to the report, there are 37 less English players in the Premiership than there were seven years ago (170 compared to 207), down 21 from last season. It is a new low for Englishmen, with the former mark coming in 02/03 with 179 (numbers had slowly risen in the four years following that nadir). And aside from the usual ‘woe is England, woe is John Bull' overtones, it’s an interesting piece.
Unsurprisingly, Arsenal has the lowest number of English players, with only .34 (a third of a player?) on average in their starting line-up. Liverpool comes in next with 2.34, and West Ham is the highest with 6.61 (Villa are the only other team above six with 6.42). On average it’s 4.038 Englishmen per side throughout the league.
And it’s pervasive from top to bottom in the league. Contrary to my expectations, two of the relegated teams (Reading and Birmingham City) are in the ‘bottom of the table,’ with the 7th and 8th lowest numbers respectively (Fulham, who finished 17th, are even worse, barely above Liverpool with 2.42 per game).
One of the main reasons that the Premier League has less and less English players is that there’s little value in it. Look at the exorbitant amounts paid for Englishmen: Darren Bent for £16m, £16m for Carrick, £18m for Hargreaves, and £10m for an unproven (but admittedly talented) Walcott. You can even see it in the price quoted for the English players supposedly coming to or going from Liverpool this summer: £15m for Bentley or Barry or Crouch? You’re having a laugh.
That’s why teams from top to bottom are searching for foreigners; when you’re shopping on a budget (which at least 17 out of 20 teams are, and I’m including Liverpool in that), buying English is the absolute opposite of cost-effective.
And it’s little coincidence that Manchester United has the most English players out of the big four. They have the money to spend £16m on Carrick and £18m on Hargreaves just as they can spend a combined £30m on Anderson and Nani or something like £27m for Rooney at the tender age of 18. Chelsea has that sort of money too, and you can see it in the premiums they pay for English players (Cole, Cole, and Wright-Phillips for example), but having an English spine is one of the least of Abramovich’s concerns.
Meanwhile, it’s little surprise that the two teams trying to keep up with United and Chelsea financially, Arsenal and Liverpool, have the fewest English players.
Despite the recent fortunes of the national team, which I’m certain was the impetus behind this study, I don’t necessarily agree that it’s bad for football. It’s arguably been a good thing for club football, evidenced by the fact the Premiership spins as much money worldwide as it does. Of course it’s also evidenced by the fact I’m writing about it despite being an ocean away, and the sustained interest in the league from countries around the world.
With the dearth of English players in the first team sides, you’d expect to see similar in the reserves and academies of Premier League clubs. And Liverpool should be a prime example of it given Benitez’s worldwide scouting network, an influx of young foreigners, an emphasis on using young players in the reserves, and the need to be cost-efficient with player transfers. But the disparity isn’t as big as I’d imagined before looking at the numbers.
Not counting players who spent the majority of the season on loan, there are currently 6 reserve team players from England, 4 from Spain, 3 from Hungary, 2 from Argentina, and 1 each from France, Holland, Morocco, Paraguay, Scotland.
I realize the reserves are fairly fluid, but for argument’s sake, here’s a usual starting line-up: Martin; Darby, San Jose, Huth, Insua; El Zhar, Plessis, Spearing, Flynn; Nemeth, Brouwer. That team wouldn’t qualify according to FIFA’s plan, with only Martin, Darby, Spearing and Flynn eligible for England.
The Under-18 team from the Academy (I’m counting those who played more than 5 games for the U-18s) contains 11 from England, 3 from Ireland, 2 from Sweden, and 1 each from Australia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, and Scotland. (FYI: There are a number of players who played for both the Reserves and Under-18s. I’m counting them in the team for which they played the most games.) It’s more multinational than it was under Heighway, but the vast majority are still from the Home Nations, if not eligible for England.
As for those on loan (Anderson, Antwi, Carson, Guthrie, Hammill, Hobbs, Roque, and Threlfall), six are English, with Antwi Ghanian and Roque Spanish.
I realize Liverpool is an “extreme” example, and of course recognize the oddity of an American writing about this from the other side of the ocean, but those numbers in the youth set-up don’t appear overwhelming. England is still the most represented, with the Academy having far more English players. But at the same time, Liverpool are adequately planning for the future by poaching (yes, poaching) young foreign talent so they don’t have to pay ridiculous fees in a few years.
Look, regardless of supporting Liverpool, I don’t believe instituting player quotas is going to fix the problems with the English national team. That needs to be done by improving grass-roots football, aiding and improving lower-league clubs’ academies so they can identify and nurture young English talent, and even re-opening an FA Center of Excellence, such as the much-discussed Burton National Football Centre.
But England also needs to understand that with the globalization of sport and the increasing quality coming out of the Americas and Africa that the country isn’t an automatic world-beater anymore, if they ever were. And, despite my nationality, I say that as an England fan for nearly 20 years now, more than two-thirds of my life. Plus, as pointed out by a Premiership statement in the BBC article, England struggled to qualify for a number of tournaments in the 70s and 80s, when this certainly wasn't an issue in the old Division 1.
The FIFA rule might narrow the gap between the ‘big four’ and the rest of the league, which is one of the intended goals of the directive. But given United and Chelsea’s ability to pay whatever they want for English talent (and Arsenal will be there soon given the increasing match-day profits thanks to the Emirates), it could also create a greater disparity between the big and small clubs.
More clubs would lose talent like, to make a cheeky example, Gareth Barry, a club captain for Villa who’s been rumored to be joining Liverpool. And the smaller clubs would be further punished by their inability to pay the higher costs for English talent. I may be an idiot when it comes to economics, but I think I have a grasp of supply and demand, and I’m pretty sure it’s applicable here.
Admittedly, something needs to be done to lessen the gap between the big four and the other 16, as well as something to improve the fortunes of the English national team. But I firmly believe FIFA’s quota will do neither. Creating a further premium on English talent while restricting the number of foreigners any side can play probably won’t increase competition the Premiership at all. I hate to suggest American “remedies” for European sport, but either a salary cap or a luxury tax/redistribution of profits would do far more to increase parity.
And might not even help the national team, given those players could be up against a diluted Premiership. Teams from top to bottom, from Arsenal and Liverpool to relegation candidates, would suffer, and those staring for the English national side would be up against lesser competition. You can’t tell me that players like Gerrard, Terry, et al don’t improve by playing with and against the world’s best week in and week out. Players who deserve to play in the Premiership and players who deserve to play for England still get their shot for both big and small clubs in the league.
To make a long story short, please, Blatter, Platini, FIFA, etc, keep your politics out of football.
My silence thanks to a lack of topics during the past week, coupled with a fervent dislike of the 6+5 rule (plus a fondness for poking and prodding Blatter’s FIFA), means I’m using these two stories to hit at a larger issue. Fair warning, this is long.
I guess I’ll start with FIFA.
For those unaware, FIFA has been trying to cut down on foreign players since the beginning of Blatter’s reign. The newest manifestation of this pursuit is the aforementioned “6+5 rule,” which looks to be endorsed by FIFA’s Congress later this week.
As demonstrated by the name, the rule moves towards a goal of at least six “homegrown” players in every club side, leaving no more than five foreigners. According to Blatter, it would be implemented step-by-step, with four required in 2010/11, five in 2011/12, and six by 2012.
It’s worth noting that there are differences between FIFA and UEFA’s definition of homegrown players. FIFA’s means those eligible for that country’s national team while UEFA’s means those trained a club as teenagers. As Reuters explains:
“Under rules introduced by UEFA three years ago, home grown players are not necessarily nationals of the countries they are playing in.
If a player spends at least three years at a club or in an adopted national association between the age of 15 and 21 he is termed as home grown.”
Loath as I am to prefer anything Platini suggests, I’m far more in favor of his version if one has to take hold, mainly because it would protect teams like Liverpool who scour the globe for young players and train them in their academies. But it also contravenes the exact point Blatter is trying to make: FIFA wants club leagues to be primarily made up of players from that country and Platini’s plan doesn’t do that. Players like Fabregas, who joined Arsenal at 16, would qualify as homegrown. Although article after article, especially those put out by FIFA’s press shop, states that Platini would go along with FIFA’s plan.
According to FIFA, the rule wouldn’t violate European law because it doesn’t restrict the free movement of workers. Clubs are still able to buy as many foreigners as they like, but they’d have to have six players on the pitch eligible for that country’s national team.
Of course, the European Union has been hinting differently and earlier this month the European Parliament voted 518-49 against the FIFA proposal, with a majority backing UEFA’s proposal (and we in the US complain about Congress getting involved in sports).
This news comes hand-in-hand with a study stating the number of English players in the Premier League is at an all-time low, and it seems more than coincidence that both stories came out on the same day.
According to the report, there are 37 less English players in the Premiership than there were seven years ago (170 compared to 207), down 21 from last season. It is a new low for Englishmen, with the former mark coming in 02/03 with 179 (numbers had slowly risen in the four years following that nadir). And aside from the usual ‘woe is England, woe is John Bull' overtones, it’s an interesting piece.
Unsurprisingly, Arsenal has the lowest number of English players, with only .34 (a third of a player?) on average in their starting line-up. Liverpool comes in next with 2.34, and West Ham is the highest with 6.61 (Villa are the only other team above six with 6.42). On average it’s 4.038 Englishmen per side throughout the league.
And it’s pervasive from top to bottom in the league. Contrary to my expectations, two of the relegated teams (Reading and Birmingham City) are in the ‘bottom of the table,’ with the 7th and 8th lowest numbers respectively (Fulham, who finished 17th, are even worse, barely above Liverpool with 2.42 per game).
One of the main reasons that the Premier League has less and less English players is that there’s little value in it. Look at the exorbitant amounts paid for Englishmen: Darren Bent for £16m, £16m for Carrick, £18m for Hargreaves, and £10m for an unproven (but admittedly talented) Walcott. You can even see it in the price quoted for the English players supposedly coming to or going from Liverpool this summer: £15m for Bentley or Barry or Crouch? You’re having a laugh.
That’s why teams from top to bottom are searching for foreigners; when you’re shopping on a budget (which at least 17 out of 20 teams are, and I’m including Liverpool in that), buying English is the absolute opposite of cost-effective.
And it’s little coincidence that Manchester United has the most English players out of the big four. They have the money to spend £16m on Carrick and £18m on Hargreaves just as they can spend a combined £30m on Anderson and Nani or something like £27m for Rooney at the tender age of 18. Chelsea has that sort of money too, and you can see it in the premiums they pay for English players (Cole, Cole, and Wright-Phillips for example), but having an English spine is one of the least of Abramovich’s concerns.
Meanwhile, it’s little surprise that the two teams trying to keep up with United and Chelsea financially, Arsenal and Liverpool, have the fewest English players.
Despite the recent fortunes of the national team, which I’m certain was the impetus behind this study, I don’t necessarily agree that it’s bad for football. It’s arguably been a good thing for club football, evidenced by the fact the Premiership spins as much money worldwide as it does. Of course it’s also evidenced by the fact I’m writing about it despite being an ocean away, and the sustained interest in the league from countries around the world.
With the dearth of English players in the first team sides, you’d expect to see similar in the reserves and academies of Premier League clubs. And Liverpool should be a prime example of it given Benitez’s worldwide scouting network, an influx of young foreigners, an emphasis on using young players in the reserves, and the need to be cost-efficient with player transfers. But the disparity isn’t as big as I’d imagined before looking at the numbers.
Not counting players who spent the majority of the season on loan, there are currently 6 reserve team players from England, 4 from Spain, 3 from Hungary, 2 from Argentina, and 1 each from France, Holland, Morocco, Paraguay, Scotland.
I realize the reserves are fairly fluid, but for argument’s sake, here’s a usual starting line-up: Martin; Darby, San Jose, Huth, Insua; El Zhar, Plessis, Spearing, Flynn; Nemeth, Brouwer. That team wouldn’t qualify according to FIFA’s plan, with only Martin, Darby, Spearing and Flynn eligible for England.
The Under-18 team from the Academy (I’m counting those who played more than 5 games for the U-18s) contains 11 from England, 3 from Ireland, 2 from Sweden, and 1 each from Australia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, and Scotland. (FYI: There are a number of players who played for both the Reserves and Under-18s. I’m counting them in the team for which they played the most games.) It’s more multinational than it was under Heighway, but the vast majority are still from the Home Nations, if not eligible for England.
As for those on loan (Anderson, Antwi, Carson, Guthrie, Hammill, Hobbs, Roque, and Threlfall), six are English, with Antwi Ghanian and Roque Spanish.
I realize Liverpool is an “extreme” example, and of course recognize the oddity of an American writing about this from the other side of the ocean, but those numbers in the youth set-up don’t appear overwhelming. England is still the most represented, with the Academy having far more English players. But at the same time, Liverpool are adequately planning for the future by poaching (yes, poaching) young foreign talent so they don’t have to pay ridiculous fees in a few years.
Look, regardless of supporting Liverpool, I don’t believe instituting player quotas is going to fix the problems with the English national team. That needs to be done by improving grass-roots football, aiding and improving lower-league clubs’ academies so they can identify and nurture young English talent, and even re-opening an FA Center of Excellence, such as the much-discussed Burton National Football Centre.
But England also needs to understand that with the globalization of sport and the increasing quality coming out of the Americas and Africa that the country isn’t an automatic world-beater anymore, if they ever were. And, despite my nationality, I say that as an England fan for nearly 20 years now, more than two-thirds of my life. Plus, as pointed out by a Premiership statement in the BBC article, England struggled to qualify for a number of tournaments in the 70s and 80s, when this certainly wasn't an issue in the old Division 1.
The FIFA rule might narrow the gap between the ‘big four’ and the rest of the league, which is one of the intended goals of the directive. But given United and Chelsea’s ability to pay whatever they want for English talent (and Arsenal will be there soon given the increasing match-day profits thanks to the Emirates), it could also create a greater disparity between the big and small clubs.
More clubs would lose talent like, to make a cheeky example, Gareth Barry, a club captain for Villa who’s been rumored to be joining Liverpool. And the smaller clubs would be further punished by their inability to pay the higher costs for English talent. I may be an idiot when it comes to economics, but I think I have a grasp of supply and demand, and I’m pretty sure it’s applicable here.
Admittedly, something needs to be done to lessen the gap between the big four and the other 16, as well as something to improve the fortunes of the English national team. But I firmly believe FIFA’s quota will do neither. Creating a further premium on English talent while restricting the number of foreigners any side can play probably won’t increase competition the Premiership at all. I hate to suggest American “remedies” for European sport, but either a salary cap or a luxury tax/redistribution of profits would do far more to increase parity.
And might not even help the national team, given those players could be up against a diluted Premiership. Teams from top to bottom, from Arsenal and Liverpool to relegation candidates, would suffer, and those staring for the English national side would be up against lesser competition. You can’t tell me that players like Gerrard, Terry, et al don’t improve by playing with and against the world’s best week in and week out. Players who deserve to play in the Premiership and players who deserve to play for England still get their shot for both big and small clubs in the league.
To make a long story short, please, Blatter, Platini, FIFA, etc, keep your politics out of football.
12 November 2007
Football 1, Platini 0
Platini abandons cup winners plan
It’s of little interest to see me continue to crow over keeping the status quo, and an end to Platini’s proposal to give a Champions League place to domestic cup winners.
What is interesting is the “compromise” plan to allow the 3rd placed team directly into the group stages and make the 4th placed team play an extra qualifying round. And why we hadn’t heard about it sooner, because it actually is a fair compromise.
I am surprised that 3rd placed teams will go straight into the group stage proper, but an extra qualifying round for the 4th placed teams isn’t too much to ask in exchange for 6 spots in the group stage secured for Platini’s pandering to the smaller nations. It will satisfy Platini by getting more champions of smaller leagues in the competition proper, while I don’t imagine it’ll prevent the worthy 4th placed teams from qualifying.
And let’s be honest. This has actually been a good year for the underdog, with Rosenborg’s performance, Besiktas’ win over Liverpool, and Shakhtar Donetsk above both Celtic and Benfica in Group D.
But there’s also been games like the reverse of the Besiktas/Liverpool fixture, United putting 4 past Dynamo Kiev while resting players, and Arsenal’s 7-0 hammering of Slavia Prague.
Yes, every now and then someone might pull a surprise, usually at home where it’s a tough place to travel, but more often than not, there’s a clear gulf between the sides. And despite my allegiances, I firmly believe the best teams -- the ones with an actual chance of winning the competition -- should be playing, no matter how harsh that comes off.
There’s always been interesting proposals voiced about returning to a 64-team straight knockout competition, including on last week’s Guardian podcast, but I haven’t been able to envision a feasible way for it to come off. There would have to be some kind of qualification, because if math serves, there were 76 teams in the CL this year if you count all 3 qualifying rounds, as well as the issues with seeding and sponsors (TV won’t be happy about the number of games unless they’re staggered).
Please forward any suggestions to UEFA, but right now, I’m not convinced there’s much better than the system in place.
Besides, these changes, while satisfying UEFA, should be mild enough to prevent any showdown with the G-14 or a European Super League, as Gordon Strachan was musing about earlier. Which I think everyone would like to avoid.
And just as a final aside, I have to say, the tone of the BBC’s article, in “breaking” the story and gloating about the Premier League “thumping” Platini, is an absolute riot.
Domestic cup winners will not get to play in the Champions League after a proposal from Uefa chief Michel Platini was rejected, BBC Sport understands.
But the team finishing third in the Premier League will now go straight into the group stages and the fourth team will face two qualifying rounds.
…
The new changes will be ratified at Uefa's executive committee meeting in Lucerne on 1 December.
BBC sports editor Mihir Bose said: "Platini wanted the new club champions to come in from the less privileged parts of Europe.
"He has got that part of the plan through - six new clubs will come in.
"But the other part of the proposal, which involved the cup winners, has been completely abandoned."
The meeting's other significant outcome was the automatic qualification of the team finishing third in the top leagues, including the Premier League.
"The Premier League has won a thumping victory over Platini," added Bose.
It’s of little interest to see me continue to crow over keeping the status quo, and an end to Platini’s proposal to give a Champions League place to domestic cup winners.
What is interesting is the “compromise” plan to allow the 3rd placed team directly into the group stages and make the 4th placed team play an extra qualifying round. And why we hadn’t heard about it sooner, because it actually is a fair compromise.
I am surprised that 3rd placed teams will go straight into the group stage proper, but an extra qualifying round for the 4th placed teams isn’t too much to ask in exchange for 6 spots in the group stage secured for Platini’s pandering to the smaller nations. It will satisfy Platini by getting more champions of smaller leagues in the competition proper, while I don’t imagine it’ll prevent the worthy 4th placed teams from qualifying.
And let’s be honest. This has actually been a good year for the underdog, with Rosenborg’s performance, Besiktas’ win over Liverpool, and Shakhtar Donetsk above both Celtic and Benfica in Group D.
But there’s also been games like the reverse of the Besiktas/Liverpool fixture, United putting 4 past Dynamo Kiev while resting players, and Arsenal’s 7-0 hammering of Slavia Prague.
Yes, every now and then someone might pull a surprise, usually at home where it’s a tough place to travel, but more often than not, there’s a clear gulf between the sides. And despite my allegiances, I firmly believe the best teams -- the ones with an actual chance of winning the competition -- should be playing, no matter how harsh that comes off.
There’s always been interesting proposals voiced about returning to a 64-team straight knockout competition, including on last week’s Guardian podcast, but I haven’t been able to envision a feasible way for it to come off. There would have to be some kind of qualification, because if math serves, there were 76 teams in the CL this year if you count all 3 qualifying rounds, as well as the issues with seeding and sponsors (TV won’t be happy about the number of games unless they’re staggered).
Please forward any suggestions to UEFA, but right now, I’m not convinced there’s much better than the system in place.
Besides, these changes, while satisfying UEFA, should be mild enough to prevent any showdown with the G-14 or a European Super League, as Gordon Strachan was musing about earlier. Which I think everyone would like to avoid.
And just as a final aside, I have to say, the tone of the BBC’s article, in “breaking” the story and gloating about the Premier League “thumping” Platini, is an absolute riot.
20 September 2007
Yet another installment of “I loathe Michel Platini”
Platini blames United and Liverpool for reform delay
I do love reading about Platini and Gaillard discussing Liverpool, as they always seem to have an even-handed and fair judgment of the club.
Not much else needs to be said, the article says enough. That and there are only so many ways I can complain about Platini and Gaillard without repeating myself. They simply never take their feet out of their mouths.
I especially like the part where Gaillard claims that Gillett and Hicks are money-grubbing bastards, while Roman Abramovich is a saint solely in it for the good of the game. That’s just too much.
If it weren’t so insulting, and potentially damaging to the game (and club) I love, it’d be hilariously farcical. I just can’t make this stuff up, and I do not understand the obvious grudge against Liverpool that these men have.
Good on Liverpool (and United) for taking this stance. Entrance into the Champions League should be based on league competition; I’d be saying that no matter which team I rooted for, although admittedly, being on the same side as the G14 does make me feel a bit dirty.
But it is a bad idea and dilutes the quality in the CL, end of. That Gaillard is attempting to argue on behalf of “sporting interests” just takes the cake, and I find it hard to believe it was said with a straight face.
And good on Gordon Brown for telling Platini to cram it where the sun doesn’t shine.
Foreign owners such as those at Manchester United and Liverpool are "a serious threat" to European football, the Uefa president, Michel Platini, said yesterday, blaming them for obstructing his Champions League reform.
In a letter to all 27 European Union leaders – including Gordon Brown, Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy – Platini asks them to protect the sport from "a distortion". The letter says: "A serious threat hangs over the development of European football: the malign and ever-present influence of money."
Platini's special adviser, William Gaillard, said the former France international believed the billionaire backers of Manchester United and Liverpool were behind the opposition to plans to give domestic cup winners a Champions League spot. Last week, the G14 group, which represents 18 of Europe's most powerful clubs, said it was opposed to the proposals.
"I know G14 have said this but from our discussions it seems the main opposition is at Liverpool and Manchester United, who have investors out to make a quick buck and are only looking at the financial risks of the reform plan and not the sporting merits," Gaillard said. "By giving away a spot in their league to cup winners, they see this as reducing their chances of entering the lucrative Champions League."
Gaillard was quick to differentiate Liverpool and United's American owners from Chelsea's Russian owner, Roman Abramovich and Milan's Silvio Berlusconi, who, according to Gaillard, Platini believes "love the game and are not just in it for money".
In his letter, Platini says: "Money has always been in sport ... but money has never been the ultimate objective of football, the main purpose has been to win trophies. For the first time we may be entering an era in which financial profit alone will be the measure of sporting success."
Liverpool's chief executive, Rick Parry, described the letter and Gaillard's comments as "absurd". Manchester United were unavailable for comment. "I made it absolutely clear [to Platini] last week that I was representing the views of the majority of English Premier League clubs when I said we do not support the reform plan," Parry said. "I didn't even discuss this issue with our owners prior to last week.
"Bottom line is that allowing the cup winners into the competition devalues the Premier League."
I do love reading about Platini and Gaillard discussing Liverpool, as they always seem to have an even-handed and fair judgment of the club.
Not much else needs to be said, the article says enough. That and there are only so many ways I can complain about Platini and Gaillard without repeating myself. They simply never take their feet out of their mouths.
I especially like the part where Gaillard claims that Gillett and Hicks are money-grubbing bastards, while Roman Abramovich is a saint solely in it for the good of the game. That’s just too much.
If it weren’t so insulting, and potentially damaging to the game (and club) I love, it’d be hilariously farcical. I just can’t make this stuff up, and I do not understand the obvious grudge against Liverpool that these men have.
Good on Liverpool (and United) for taking this stance. Entrance into the Champions League should be based on league competition; I’d be saying that no matter which team I rooted for, although admittedly, being on the same side as the G14 does make me feel a bit dirty.
But it is a bad idea and dilutes the quality in the CL, end of. That Gaillard is attempting to argue on behalf of “sporting interests” just takes the cake, and I find it hard to believe it was said with a straight face.
And good on Gordon Brown for telling Platini to cram it where the sun doesn’t shine.
30 August 2007
Frenchman singles out and criticizes Americans? No way!
I realize the Platini-bashing is getting tiresome, but when he keeps inserting his foot directly into his mouth, I can’t help myself.
Platini slams foreign owners
Granted, this is a touchy subject for me, being an American and all, but come on.
There’s truth to some of the talk of ‘identity,’ but foreign owners are a symptom, not a cause of football (and really all sports) becoming a business.
And I’d much rather have Gillett and Hicks own Liverpool, than, say, Steve Morgan, Doug Ellis, David Sullivan/David Gold, or Ken Bates, just to name a few. Actions are what matters, not nationality.
Let’s see, in the space of around 6 months, they’ve spent a ton of money, including 2 of Liverpool’s 3 costliest transfers (but more importantly, supporting Benitez in the purchases he wanted to make), all the key players have been resigned to new contracts, and the previous new stadium design was torn up to fit more seats and take fans' views into account.
Besides, the times may have changed, but Shankly’s quote still holds weight. “At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques.”
And despite my disgust at his naming clubs (even forgetting one of those clubs is Liverpool), and despite my much-discussed dislike of Platini, I’m infuriated at the fact he feels this falls under his brief, and that it’s something he should be commenting on.
How this guy became head of UEFA is beyond me. I can’t wait to see what he has to say about the details of his Champions League “plan” before the draw.
Platini slams foreign owners
Michael Platini has launched a surprising attack on the foreign ownership of English football clubs.
Platini, the president of Uefa, has revealed his dislike for the increasing foreign investment in the Premier League.
Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Aston Villa are among a number of top flight clubs who have been taken over by owners from abroad and Platini insists that something must be done.
"I can't understand how so many English clubs are owned by foreign people," Platini told Sky Sports News.
"I think we can do something. I don't know why Americans come to buy some clubs. You need your identity.
"I can't understand why some English clubs are owned by Americans because they do not come for the beauty of the game, for the romance of the football in England.
"They come because they want to make money. We need to defend that.
"If you have Manchester against Liverpool it is part of the population of the cities.
"But now if you have an owner from America against an owner from Russia, I don't like it."
Granted, this is a touchy subject for me, being an American and all, but come on.
There’s truth to some of the talk of ‘identity,’ but foreign owners are a symptom, not a cause of football (and really all sports) becoming a business.
And I’d much rather have Gillett and Hicks own Liverpool, than, say, Steve Morgan, Doug Ellis, David Sullivan/David Gold, or Ken Bates, just to name a few. Actions are what matters, not nationality.
Let’s see, in the space of around 6 months, they’ve spent a ton of money, including 2 of Liverpool’s 3 costliest transfers (but more importantly, supporting Benitez in the purchases he wanted to make), all the key players have been resigned to new contracts, and the previous new stadium design was torn up to fit more seats and take fans' views into account.
Besides, the times may have changed, but Shankly’s quote still holds weight. “At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques.”
And despite my disgust at his naming clubs (even forgetting one of those clubs is Liverpool), and despite my much-discussed dislike of Platini, I’m infuriated at the fact he feels this falls under his brief, and that it’s something he should be commenting on.
How this guy became head of UEFA is beyond me. I can’t wait to see what he has to say about the details of his Champions League “plan” before the draw.
26 August 2007
Michel Platini still thinks the Champions League is too successful as it is
Averse as I am to agree with anything Alex Ferguson says, for once, he’s talking some sense.
Platini refuses give up on this. He’s going to change the Champions League come hell or high water, no matter how successful the tournament is.
And evidently making the 4th qualification spot for cup winners instead of the 4th placed team in the league is a valid compromise. Of course, it doesn’t do nearly as much to promote his stated aim of getting more teams from smaller countries further in the tournament, but that might be less of a concern now that he’s been elected.
From what the plan appears to be, cup winners will go through a separate qualification process, with 4 advancing, so 12 other teams will still have to play up to three games to qualify for the money-spinning group stages. There will just be more of those smaller-country teams in those qualifiers, and they won’t really have that much more of a chance of qualification.
Also, I was under the impression that Spanish and Italian cups are far less prestigious than the FA Cup. I imagine this suggestion will be taken about as well as Fergie took it in those two countries.
If you were wondering, the last time someone other than Liverpool, United, Chelsea, or Arsenal won the FA Cup was Everton (ugh) in 1995. So after all that, the 4th placed team would still get in, but they’d have to go through the silly separate two-round qualification for cup winners. Right.
Full details of the “plan” here.
Past diatribes about changing the Champions League:
Platini’s new proposals
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?
Sir Alex Ferguson has come out strongly against Michel Platini's proposals to award Champions League qualification to the winners of the FA Cup and other domestic knockout tournaments around Europe, arguing that such a move would devalue the efforts of clubs fighting for places week after week in the leagues.
The Uefa president originally said he wanted to see fewer teams from the big European nations in the Champions League and more champions from smaller countries, though the various vested interests in the major leagues were never going to vote for such an idealistic scheme.
Platini's present plan is a watered-down version that would cut the number of Premier League qualifiers from four to three, with an extra place for the FA Cup winners. In view of the fact that the FA Cup has been a virtual monopoly of top-four clubs for the past decade, little would actually change and the status of the FA Cup could benefit, yet Ferguson believes a six-game route to Champions League riches is insultingly easy.
'I don't agree with it, the Champions League is for what you do in the league,' the Manchester United manager said. 'You can win the FA Cup, like Chelsea did last season, playing nobody up until the final. Or the semi-final at least. Does that warrant entry into the Champions League?
'We played Millwall in a final three years ago, and what a game that was for us. No disrespect to Millwall but I don't think a final like that should have Champions League qualification riding on it. It's totally ridiculous. Players who have battled through 38 league games don't deserve to see that. This is a tough league, and it will be tougher than ever this year.
'In fairness to Uefa they do normally listen to clubs and club managers' comments before making a decision, and there's a European coaches meeting next week. I'm sure coaches will be making their opinions known, and in my personal opinion this idea is absolutely ridiculous.’
Platini refuses give up on this. He’s going to change the Champions League come hell or high water, no matter how successful the tournament is.
And evidently making the 4th qualification spot for cup winners instead of the 4th placed team in the league is a valid compromise. Of course, it doesn’t do nearly as much to promote his stated aim of getting more teams from smaller countries further in the tournament, but that might be less of a concern now that he’s been elected.
From what the plan appears to be, cup winners will go through a separate qualification process, with 4 advancing, so 12 other teams will still have to play up to three games to qualify for the money-spinning group stages. There will just be more of those smaller-country teams in those qualifiers, and they won’t really have that much more of a chance of qualification.
Also, I was under the impression that Spanish and Italian cups are far less prestigious than the FA Cup. I imagine this suggestion will be taken about as well as Fergie took it in those two countries.
If you were wondering, the last time someone other than Liverpool, United, Chelsea, or Arsenal won the FA Cup was Everton (ugh) in 1995. So after all that, the 4th placed team would still get in, but they’d have to go through the silly separate two-round qualification for cup winners. Right.
Full details of the “plan” here.
Past diatribes about changing the Champions League:
Platini’s new proposals
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?
05 June 2007
More 'worst fans' nonsense
All day Sunday, BBC Football, which is the first site I check for news nearly every time I’m looking, called Liverpool the ‘worst fans in Europe’ in the headline of the top story. I’m sure there were many others who did similar, but unlike some of the others, the Beeb isn’t usually known for trotting out complete nonsense.
Now that Platini’s been forced to backtrack, and stated "No they are not the worst behaved in Europe. It's official, they are not the worst behaved in Europe" (as if he should even have to make a statement like that), it’s the last headline on the Football frontpage as of right now, and didn’t even show up until around 7pm UK time. The hallmark of brilliant spin is when the reply to it is ignored.
Maybe it’s best to go back to what Gaillard originally said. We’ve all seen the choice bits in the version released to Reuters.
However, around the same time, audio of an interview with Gaillard showed up on the BBC’s website (again, sorry this focuses on BBC coverage, but I usually feel it’s the most rational major outlet). I hope it remains online, but in case, here’s as full a transcript as my sanity can provide.
Gaillard spins with the best corporate PR flacks and continues to ignore UEFA’s role in the debacle, but it sounds to me like it’s the journalist pressing the issue. It’s the reporter who asks if Liverpool will be banned from Europe or if fans will be denied tickets. He’s the first (and only) to say the phrase “worst club.” Maybe he’s simply responding to how the original article was phrased, but I doubt it. He’s goading Gaillard into saying something worse. Something that will sell.
Here in America, all I get of Sky Sports is an hour-long daily news show. If this is how the BBC handled the issue, I fear for what Sky’s coverage was like. I know the tabloids (I can’t speak for the coverage in the one tabloid no Liverpool fan should ever read but I can imagine) were as classy as usual.
I’m going nowhere near absolving UEFA from blame in how this was reported. They leaked parts of the report, parts that absolved UEFA of any blame for Athens, two days before it was to be delivered to Caborn. On a Sunday no less, a day they’d be sure it would get heavy coverage for lack of much else.
But the media took the bait, and maybe pushed it farther than UEFA anticipated. Of course, there’s always the possibility UEFA’s bureaucrats are cognizant of exactly what they’re doing, but it invoked such a fury among Liverpool supporters, it’s probably more than likely Gaillard will lose his job, although that may just be me hoping. And it invoked such a fury that Platini's had to come out with such mollifying comments in an attempt to subside the furor.
Well, for all intents and purposes, your organization did say it, Michel. It’s common knowledge (well, it should be) I don’t like Platini, and I do hope both him and Gaillard aren’t around long. This is yet another example of their incompetence. But the media is partly to blame for the extent of this instance, and has to be the target of some of the fans’ anger.
I know I haven’t come to an astonishing conclusion. The media always hypes things in an attempt to sell papers. It’s definitely nothing new. But, and without absolving UEFA of anything they said or even implied, Liverpool fans should remember this example of it.
I don’t take back any of my condemnation of UEFA in the previous post, nor do I ignore the actions of a minority of Liverpool fans in Athens. But this isn’t about that. This is about how the media, even “sensible” outlets like the BBC, will play up anything, no matter how inflammatory, in their own aims.
I was disgusted at how Liverpool fans were tarred by UEFA’s accusations and unwillingness to take any blame over the weekend. I want it clear how disgusted I am with the media for promoting, and distorting, the story even further.
___
Apologies for two posts in a row on such an infuriating subject that’s probably best ignored, but it’s news, and unavoidable, as there’s not much transfer talk to distract around the club at the moment. But, on the same day as new co-owner Tom Hicks’ condemnation of UEFA, there’s also a promise of impending signings, maybe within the week. Can’t wait.
Now that Platini’s been forced to backtrack, and stated "No they are not the worst behaved in Europe. It's official, they are not the worst behaved in Europe" (as if he should even have to make a statement like that), it’s the last headline on the Football frontpage as of right now, and didn’t even show up until around 7pm UK time. The hallmark of brilliant spin is when the reply to it is ignored.
Maybe it’s best to go back to what Gaillard originally said. We’ve all seen the choice bits in the version released to Reuters.
"The incidents involving Liverpool fans have been well known to us before the trouble at the Champions League final which involved Liverpool fans last week.
"That was just the latest example. What other set of fans steal tickets from their fellow supporters or out of the hands of children? We know what happened in Athens, and Liverpool fans were the cause of most of the trouble there.
"There have been 25 incidents involving Liverpool fans away from home since 2003 and these are in the report -- most teams' supporters do not cause any trouble at all."
However, around the same time, audio of an interview with Gaillard showed up on the BBC’s website (again, sorry this focuses on BBC coverage, but I usually feel it’s the most rational major outlet). I hope it remains online, but in case, here’s as full a transcript as my sanity can provide.
Gaillard: …Like any citizens, they are entitled to their views and they are entitled to go to court for anything they have to complain about. It’s not for us to judge their action. If they go to court, we’ll present our point of view then.
BBC: Do you feel that maybe they should be looking at fellow fans rather than UEFA?
Gaillard: That’s a different issue. As we have said, most of the Liverpool fans who had problems were the result of actions by the other Liverpool fans. We know there have been muggings, there have been people assaulted, we even know some people have been assaulted, uh so, I think there’s food for thought in what happened in Athens and when we draw conclusions, there will be things that we need to analyze and probably to change but it’s for everyone.
BBC: In that report we know what you think about what happened last week and you’ll gather reports, is there a body of evidence at UEFA as far as Liverpool fans are concerned that this has happened before?
Gaillard: We have independent sources that tell us that, yes, there have been incidents with Liverpool fans over the last few years with matches away from Liverpool, but I think Liverpool Football Club knows that too and if you go even to websites like the FSF, the Football Supporters Federation, you see that there are lots of fans that have gone, Liverpool fans, and saying, you know, the way some of our fellow fans behaved is unacceptable. Now, again, a club cannot… it’s always, you know historically a club has always been made responsible for their fans, objectively responsible. The fact is they have trouble with 5000 stewards all over Europe. We understand that. We are not by any way blind to the circumstances. We know that Liverpool Football Club did not want these incidents to happen it’s so obvious. But we have to what can be figure out what can be done because we are in a new situation. We have thousands of fans traveling in all directions in Europe. This was not the case 20 years ago. Yes, for a final you had some fans traveling. But no, it’s even for a group stage. Where you can have suddenly a few thousand people coming from abroad and arriving at the airport and all the problems it causes with the traffic so it’s a whole new concept as to be developed.
BBC: Do you feel that Liverpool fans may be stopped from traveling? That may be a solution?
Gaillard: No, because then it will reappear with another club or… and plus, we live in the European Union. People are free to travel where they want, to go where they want…
BBC: You can stop them having tickets though…
Gaillard: This is again police coordination. If there are some elements that shouldn’t be having tickets, it’s important this would also be applied abroad.
BBC: When the report arrives on Richard Caborn’s desk, do you feel his initial view of what happened may be different?
Gaillard: I don’t know what his view is now.
BBC: He believes that Liverpool fans were treated unfairly.
Gaillard: Well, let him decide for himself. Let him decide for himself with the facts and figures.
BBC: And what will they say?
Gaillard: I think they will give him food for thought and, uh, we don’t try to put the blame on one or the other. We’re just asking some questions and trying to reason out what should be done in the future. I mean one thing we can all rejoice at is no one was badly hurt. That’s something very positive and we can build for the future.
BBC: Are Liverpool the worst club do you feel, the worst offenders for this in Europe?
Gaillard: We know that there are more incidents involving Liverpool from what this report was given to us than other clubs. But also, Liverpool is playing more matches.
Gaillard spins with the best corporate PR flacks and continues to ignore UEFA’s role in the debacle, but it sounds to me like it’s the journalist pressing the issue. It’s the reporter who asks if Liverpool will be banned from Europe or if fans will be denied tickets. He’s the first (and only) to say the phrase “worst club.” Maybe he’s simply responding to how the original article was phrased, but I doubt it. He’s goading Gaillard into saying something worse. Something that will sell.
Here in America, all I get of Sky Sports is an hour-long daily news show. If this is how the BBC handled the issue, I fear for what Sky’s coverage was like. I know the tabloids (I can’t speak for the coverage in the one tabloid no Liverpool fan should ever read but I can imagine) were as classy as usual.
I’m going nowhere near absolving UEFA from blame in how this was reported. They leaked parts of the report, parts that absolved UEFA of any blame for Athens, two days before it was to be delivered to Caborn. On a Sunday no less, a day they’d be sure it would get heavy coverage for lack of much else.
But the media took the bait, and maybe pushed it farther than UEFA anticipated. Of course, there’s always the possibility UEFA’s bureaucrats are cognizant of exactly what they’re doing, but it invoked such a fury among Liverpool supporters, it’s probably more than likely Gaillard will lose his job, although that may just be me hoping. And it invoked such a fury that Platini's had to come out with such mollifying comments in an attempt to subside the furor.
"It is not as if one set of fans are good or one set bad. This is not the question in the end. We cannot go around saying that."
Well, for all intents and purposes, your organization did say it, Michel. It’s common knowledge (well, it should be) I don’t like Platini, and I do hope both him and Gaillard aren’t around long. This is yet another example of their incompetence. But the media is partly to blame for the extent of this instance, and has to be the target of some of the fans’ anger.
I know I haven’t come to an astonishing conclusion. The media always hypes things in an attempt to sell papers. It’s definitely nothing new. But, and without absolving UEFA of anything they said or even implied, Liverpool fans should remember this example of it.
I don’t take back any of my condemnation of UEFA in the previous post, nor do I ignore the actions of a minority of Liverpool fans in Athens. But this isn’t about that. This is about how the media, even “sensible” outlets like the BBC, will play up anything, no matter how inflammatory, in their own aims.
I was disgusted at how Liverpool fans were tarred by UEFA’s accusations and unwillingness to take any blame over the weekend. I want it clear how disgusted I am with the media for promoting, and distorting, the story even further.
___
Apologies for two posts in a row on such an infuriating subject that’s probably best ignored, but it’s news, and unavoidable, as there’s not much transfer talk to distract around the club at the moment. But, on the same day as new co-owner Tom Hicks’ condemnation of UEFA, there’s also a promise of impending signings, maybe within the week. Can’t wait.
04 June 2007
Worst Fans in Europe?
On a morning that saw Gerrard and Carragher sign deals that will tie them to the club until 2011, everyone's talking about the "worst fans in Europe." Super.
I don't really have much else to add to the chorus of others, despite my undying dislike of Platini, Gaillard, UEFA, FIFA, and pretty much every organization that's so far put politics over football. We've already known these groups are frequently negligent at best, and now they're trying to shift any and all blame onto traveling Liverpool fans instead of taking a long hard look at themselves.
Admittedly, I'm not in the best position to comment. I'm not a match-going red, I'm not a Scouser. But I will take umbrage at all degradation of Liverpool fans with a blanket statement, especially when it's as unjustified as this. 'When in doubt, blame the English' might as well be UEFA's motto.
This will not be a defense of the actions of some Liverpool supporters in Athens. There is no defense. You cannot defend stealing tickets, rushing the gates, or any of the actions taken by the minority of traveling fans. They’ve given UEFA the opportunity to tar an entire fanbase with the same brush.
The word “minority” must be emphasized. And to pretend that the fans were the complete and total cause of the breakdown, that Liverpool have some of the worst fans in Europe, and that there are 25 incidents ranging over the past five or so years that prove this is utter insanity. It was Gaillard himself who said the day before the final that "The two groups of supporters have a tradition of good behaviour and at this point we are expecting that to continue," not to mention the platitudes thrown out by Platini, Blatter, and their ilk towards Liverpool fans whenever it suits their purposes.
UEFA certainly has some nerve. These are political men, doing their utmost to turn the game into a political organization, and this is yet another example of that. It's completely acceptable to condemn an entire group of supporters in what boils down to a PR effort to save face. That’s disgusting, even if it’s not your favorite team they’re defaming. Blaming the customers is an exceptional business approach. Those responsible need to take responsibility to be sure. Some actions of Liverpool fans were a complete disgrace. But all involved need to take responsibility, and not just throw stones when you live in the biggest glass house on the block.
This isn’t about other allegations, but UEFA feels comfortable making declarative statements like these when policemen are getting killed at matches? When virulent racism still takes place? When Ultras rule certain teams fan bases? Match fixing, flares, missiles. Stewards pelted with seats, fans stabbed outside of stadiums.
It's heartening to see Parry and the club come out with a statement early this morning, because I know there was concern over the weekend over the club's response. There was no way Liverpool could shove this under the rug, but the condemnation was swift, severe, and welcomed.
In lieu of trashing UEFA and their arguments even more, and end up repeating what far better writers have already said, I'd rather point you to other articles around the internet that do the job of pointing out the insanity of this situation and UEFA in general. From what I’ve written in the past, I’d imagine it’s clear I’ve little love lost for Platini, Gaillard, or UEFA, but this is just disgraceful. There’s no other way to say it.
• Liverpool Echo: RESIGN
• Tony Barrett: UEFA smear campaign
• RAWK: A Open Letter to Michel Platini
• BBC: Caborn and Parry hit back at UEFA
• Guardian: UEFA needs to buck up its ideas
• Liverpool fan to sue UEFA over Athens chaos
I don't really have much else to add to the chorus of others, despite my undying dislike of Platini, Gaillard, UEFA, FIFA, and pretty much every organization that's so far put politics over football. We've already known these groups are frequently negligent at best, and now they're trying to shift any and all blame onto traveling Liverpool fans instead of taking a long hard look at themselves.
Admittedly, I'm not in the best position to comment. I'm not a match-going red, I'm not a Scouser. But I will take umbrage at all degradation of Liverpool fans with a blanket statement, especially when it's as unjustified as this. 'When in doubt, blame the English' might as well be UEFA's motto.
This will not be a defense of the actions of some Liverpool supporters in Athens. There is no defense. You cannot defend stealing tickets, rushing the gates, or any of the actions taken by the minority of traveling fans. They’ve given UEFA the opportunity to tar an entire fanbase with the same brush.
The word “minority” must be emphasized. And to pretend that the fans were the complete and total cause of the breakdown, that Liverpool have some of the worst fans in Europe, and that there are 25 incidents ranging over the past five or so years that prove this is utter insanity. It was Gaillard himself who said the day before the final that "The two groups of supporters have a tradition of good behaviour and at this point we are expecting that to continue," not to mention the platitudes thrown out by Platini, Blatter, and their ilk towards Liverpool fans whenever it suits their purposes.
UEFA certainly has some nerve. These are political men, doing their utmost to turn the game into a political organization, and this is yet another example of that. It's completely acceptable to condemn an entire group of supporters in what boils down to a PR effort to save face. That’s disgusting, even if it’s not your favorite team they’re defaming. Blaming the customers is an exceptional business approach. Those responsible need to take responsibility to be sure. Some actions of Liverpool fans were a complete disgrace. But all involved need to take responsibility, and not just throw stones when you live in the biggest glass house on the block.
This isn’t about other allegations, but UEFA feels comfortable making declarative statements like these when policemen are getting killed at matches? When virulent racism still takes place? When Ultras rule certain teams fan bases? Match fixing, flares, missiles. Stewards pelted with seats, fans stabbed outside of stadiums.
It's heartening to see Parry and the club come out with a statement early this morning, because I know there was concern over the weekend over the club's response. There was no way Liverpool could shove this under the rug, but the condemnation was swift, severe, and welcomed.
In lieu of trashing UEFA and their arguments even more, and end up repeating what far better writers have already said, I'd rather point you to other articles around the internet that do the job of pointing out the insanity of this situation and UEFA in general. From what I’ve written in the past, I’d imagine it’s clear I’ve little love lost for Platini, Gaillard, or UEFA, but this is just disgraceful. There’s no other way to say it.
• Liverpool Echo: RESIGN
• Tony Barrett: UEFA smear campaign
• RAWK: A Open Letter to Michel Platini
• BBC: Caborn and Parry hit back at UEFA
• Guardian: UEFA needs to buck up its ideas
• Liverpool fan to sue UEFA over Athens chaos
14 March 2007
Platini's new proposals
Continuing on a topic we’re very interested in around these parts, newly-elected UEFA President Michel Platini spelled out some of the changes he’d been proposing for UEFA and the Champions League at a media briefing in London.
#1: Lower seeds from the major countries (England, Spain, Italy, France, Germany) will play each other rather than European minnows in the final qualifying round.
The centerpiece of Platini’s plan. He was elected by promising better Champions League representation for the smaller countries, and it seems this is how he plans on going about doing it. Well, it’s better than taking away England, Spain, or Italy’s fourth qualifying spot outright. I realize a lot of my complaining over this can be linked with Liverpool consistently finishing 3rd or 4th in the league, but it's more than that. Really.
Honestly, for neutrals, would you rather see Arsenal/Roma/Valencia (off the top of my head), or Liberec (Czech champions in 2006)/Legia Warsaw (Polish champions) in the group stage? I realize this sounds condescending, and I don’t mean it as so, but simply from a sporting perspective, the first group of teams deserves to be there as much as the second group. That’s what the qualifying rounds do now. These sets of teams already end up playing each other. The teams and federations involved in the CL are seeded, and the teams that deserve to progress out of the qualifying round do so by winning their games. Not because the UEFA President thinks we need more European countries represented out of some concept of fairness. I imagine you all are as sick of reading it as I am writing it, but it bears reiterating. Why kill the goose laying the golden egg? The Champions League is successful in the state it’s in.
#2: Establishing a UEFA strategic committee where UEFA, the European leagues, the clubs and the players' union FIFPro would each have an equal voice in deciding changes in European club football.
I can’t see what adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to the game’s overseers will accomplish, but it’s obvious Platini wants to lessen the power of the G-14 clubs at pretty much any cost. If Platini doesn’t stack the committee with allies, it may be beneficial involving the opinions of so many disparate bodies, but I’d be surprised if he didn’t. Nor do I imagine this body will be able to agree on much.
#3: Banning players going on loan to teams playing in the same competitions as the club that owns them.
Idiotic, simple as. Even if they don’t take into account domestic leagues, which the article is unclear about, a team would be prevented from sending a player on loan to another club if both were involved in the CL or UEFA Cup. How does this better the game, or the players involved?
#4: Preventing European clubs from signing players who are still owned by agents or companies.
Ah, the Tevez and Mascherano loophole. This is seemingly accounted for in the FA’s laws, with West Ham under investigation over the aforementioned players, but extending this European-wide, where it will have more of an effect in Spain and Italy, can only be more helpful in stamping out corruption and some of the seedier corporate aspects of the game.
#5: Backing the introduction of a rule where clubs can only spend a percentage of their turnover on player wages and transfers.
First step to a “salary cap,” to incorporate some American vernacular. Obviously, certain clubs’ spending is out of control (Hi Roman!), but the pros and cons of wage restrictions are far to numerous to spell out here. On face value, it still seems too much of a constraint on how clubs want to do their business. Using a percentage of turnover is a lot smarter than a set ceiling though, given the difference in finances between say a Manchester United and a Watford.
#6: Encouraging referees to abandon matches where there is overt racist abuse.
No brainer, and I hope they’re actually serious about this in certain countries. Kick. It. Out.
Let’s hope Platini has more planned for the future, because I’m distinctly underwhelmed.
#1: Lower seeds from the major countries (England, Spain, Italy, France, Germany) will play each other rather than European minnows in the final qualifying round.
The centerpiece of Platini’s plan. He was elected by promising better Champions League representation for the smaller countries, and it seems this is how he plans on going about doing it. Well, it’s better than taking away England, Spain, or Italy’s fourth qualifying spot outright. I realize a lot of my complaining over this can be linked with Liverpool consistently finishing 3rd or 4th in the league, but it's more than that. Really.
Honestly, for neutrals, would you rather see Arsenal/Roma/Valencia (off the top of my head), or Liberec (Czech champions in 2006)/Legia Warsaw (Polish champions) in the group stage? I realize this sounds condescending, and I don’t mean it as so, but simply from a sporting perspective, the first group of teams deserves to be there as much as the second group. That’s what the qualifying rounds do now. These sets of teams already end up playing each other. The teams and federations involved in the CL are seeded, and the teams that deserve to progress out of the qualifying round do so by winning their games. Not because the UEFA President thinks we need more European countries represented out of some concept of fairness. I imagine you all are as sick of reading it as I am writing it, but it bears reiterating. Why kill the goose laying the golden egg? The Champions League is successful in the state it’s in.
#2: Establishing a UEFA strategic committee where UEFA, the European leagues, the clubs and the players' union FIFPro would each have an equal voice in deciding changes in European club football.
I can’t see what adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to the game’s overseers will accomplish, but it’s obvious Platini wants to lessen the power of the G-14 clubs at pretty much any cost. If Platini doesn’t stack the committee with allies, it may be beneficial involving the opinions of so many disparate bodies, but I’d be surprised if he didn’t. Nor do I imagine this body will be able to agree on much.
#3: Banning players going on loan to teams playing in the same competitions as the club that owns them.
Idiotic, simple as. Even if they don’t take into account domestic leagues, which the article is unclear about, a team would be prevented from sending a player on loan to another club if both were involved in the CL or UEFA Cup. How does this better the game, or the players involved?
#4: Preventing European clubs from signing players who are still owned by agents or companies.
Ah, the Tevez and Mascherano loophole. This is seemingly accounted for in the FA’s laws, with West Ham under investigation over the aforementioned players, but extending this European-wide, where it will have more of an effect in Spain and Italy, can only be more helpful in stamping out corruption and some of the seedier corporate aspects of the game.
#5: Backing the introduction of a rule where clubs can only spend a percentage of their turnover on player wages and transfers.
First step to a “salary cap,” to incorporate some American vernacular. Obviously, certain clubs’ spending is out of control (Hi Roman!), but the pros and cons of wage restrictions are far to numerous to spell out here. On face value, it still seems too much of a constraint on how clubs want to do their business. Using a percentage of turnover is a lot smarter than a set ceiling though, given the difference in finances between say a Manchester United and a Watford.
#6: Encouraging referees to abandon matches where there is overt racist abuse.
No brainer, and I hope they’re actually serious about this in certain countries. Kick. It. Out.
Let’s hope Platini has more planned for the future, because I’m distinctly underwhelmed.
15 February 2007
Five referees vs. video technology
So new UEFA President Michel Platini’s solution to controversial refereeing decisions is adding two more officials instead of video technology?
Surprisingly, I agree.
I’m still grappling with the issue of video technology. It works to varying success in sports from American football, rugby, hockey, basketball, and tennis, but footie is a different breed. Instant replay does have the potential to slow the game down far too much, or at least at inopportune moments, where the stoppage in play could stop a possible counter attack in its tracks. And in moments such as, say, Luis Garcia’s goal against Chelsea in the 2005 CL semifinals, no amount of replays will give a definite answer.
But something needs to be done to lessen the number of those moments. While video replay would probably conclusively settle more cases than additional officials or linesmen, the costs are probably too high.
Granted, having more referees on the pitch would necessitate UEFA and the nationals FAs spending more money on grassroots training for referees. The FA’s refereeing courses need to be more widely available, and more emphasis (although I know emphasis has grown in recent years) placed on recruitment. It would also help if there was a greater consistency in the application of current laws, but now I’m getting delusional. Quality officials aren’t a dime a dozen; it’s why we’re still stuck with the likes of Uriah Rennie and Graham Poll, and former referee Jeff Winter has recently come out and criticized the current lot.
Although I’m skeptical of this talk about putting them in the penalty box. Has UEFA seen English football? There are already enough people in a confined area. But say an extra referee (one for each half), an extra linesman on the opposite sideline, or an assistant on each goalline? I’m all for looking into it.
Surprisingly, I agree.
I’m still grappling with the issue of video technology. It works to varying success in sports from American football, rugby, hockey, basketball, and tennis, but footie is a different breed. Instant replay does have the potential to slow the game down far too much, or at least at inopportune moments, where the stoppage in play could stop a possible counter attack in its tracks. And in moments such as, say, Luis Garcia’s goal against Chelsea in the 2005 CL semifinals, no amount of replays will give a definite answer.
But something needs to be done to lessen the number of those moments. While video replay would probably conclusively settle more cases than additional officials or linesmen, the costs are probably too high.
Granted, having more referees on the pitch would necessitate UEFA and the nationals FAs spending more money on grassroots training for referees. The FA’s refereeing courses need to be more widely available, and more emphasis (although I know emphasis has grown in recent years) placed on recruitment. It would also help if there was a greater consistency in the application of current laws, but now I’m getting delusional. Quality officials aren’t a dime a dozen; it’s why we’re still stuck with the likes of Uriah Rennie and Graham Poll, and former referee Jeff Winter has recently come out and criticized the current lot.
Although I’m skeptical of this talk about putting them in the penalty box. Has UEFA seen English football? There are already enough people in a confined area. But say an extra referee (one for each half), an extra linesman on the opposite sideline, or an assistant on each goalline? I’m all for looking into it.
26 January 2007
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?
Michel Platini was elected President of UEFA ahead of incumbent Lennart Johansson this morning. I can’t say I’m thrilled (I certainly would have voted for Johansson), but hopefully, Platini will come to realize it’s a figurehead position and won’t attempt to bring his proposed changes to the European game.
The cause for this concern is Platini’s constantly stated proposal to limit countries to three teams in the Champions League. According to the incoming President, England, Italy, and Spain should no longer receive 4 Champions League places, TV revenue and G-14 be damned. This year, Arsenal, Osasuna, and Chievo Verona wouldn’t have made the Champions League. Osasuna and Chievo were admittedly surprises, and on face value, might not deserve to be in the tournament as neither qualified for the group stages, but it’s hard to say that they took a spot from a team more deserving.
Look at the usual suspects from the national leagues. Competition for Champions League places in these organizations is already heated. And now, one of United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool would miss the CL every season. In Spain, there are Real, Barca, Valencia, Sevilla, and Villarreal, among others. In Italy (after Juve returns from Serie B), there’s AC Milan, Inter, Roma, and Juve. Every year, one of the biggest names in club football, if not more than one, will miss out on its biggest tournament.
It wouldn’t kill the competition, but it certainly wouldn’t help competition or revenue. As Johansson himself repeatedly said, why change a success? Why try and kill the goose laying you golden eggs?
I still find it hard to believe that the G-14, the organization made up of the largest clubs and stalking horse of European football, would agree to or ever allow this to happen. Their clubs would be those that will lose places and revenue. England especially, as the bulk of television revenue comes from the UK.
I’m sincerely hoping Platini’s proposal is campaign trail talk and nothing more. Pleasantries and empty promises to encourage the smaller national associations to vote for him. Because I firmly believe that it would be to the detriment of the tournament to take these teams out of the Champions League. Primarily, you’re losing a big name that will bring fans and revenue to the tournament, more so than any team that would replace them, but it’s more than that.
It will not help winners from smaller nations last longer in the Champions League. Chances are, those teams will still lose to bigger opposition, whether it’s the 3rd or 4th placed team from said country. And it will not increase the visibility and viability of the UEFA Cup. There will always be only one Champions League.
Not to mention that traveling down this road will bring UEFA in direct competition with its biggest clubs and the G-14. Fostering these divisions cannot be good for the game, simple as.
If Platini’s proposal was already law, Liverpool wouldn’t have won the CL in 2005. There would have been no Garcia wonder-goal against Juve, no ‘did it cross the line?’ controversy against Chelsea, and no greatest comeback in European Cup history. Liverpool fan or not, there’s reason enough.
But hey, Sepp Blatter fully supports and endorses Platini, so everything must be fine.
The cause for this concern is Platini’s constantly stated proposal to limit countries to three teams in the Champions League. According to the incoming President, England, Italy, and Spain should no longer receive 4 Champions League places, TV revenue and G-14 be damned. This year, Arsenal, Osasuna, and Chievo Verona wouldn’t have made the Champions League. Osasuna and Chievo were admittedly surprises, and on face value, might not deserve to be in the tournament as neither qualified for the group stages, but it’s hard to say that they took a spot from a team more deserving.
Look at the usual suspects from the national leagues. Competition for Champions League places in these organizations is already heated. And now, one of United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool would miss the CL every season. In Spain, there are Real, Barca, Valencia, Sevilla, and Villarreal, among others. In Italy (after Juve returns from Serie B), there’s AC Milan, Inter, Roma, and Juve. Every year, one of the biggest names in club football, if not more than one, will miss out on its biggest tournament.
It wouldn’t kill the competition, but it certainly wouldn’t help competition or revenue. As Johansson himself repeatedly said, why change a success? Why try and kill the goose laying you golden eggs?
I still find it hard to believe that the G-14, the organization made up of the largest clubs and stalking horse of European football, would agree to or ever allow this to happen. Their clubs would be those that will lose places and revenue. England especially, as the bulk of television revenue comes from the UK.
I’m sincerely hoping Platini’s proposal is campaign trail talk and nothing more. Pleasantries and empty promises to encourage the smaller national associations to vote for him. Because I firmly believe that it would be to the detriment of the tournament to take these teams out of the Champions League. Primarily, you’re losing a big name that will bring fans and revenue to the tournament, more so than any team that would replace them, but it’s more than that.
It will not help winners from smaller nations last longer in the Champions League. Chances are, those teams will still lose to bigger opposition, whether it’s the 3rd or 4th placed team from said country. And it will not increase the visibility and viability of the UEFA Cup. There will always be only one Champions League.
Not to mention that traveling down this road will bring UEFA in direct competition with its biggest clubs and the G-14. Fostering these divisions cannot be good for the game, simple as.
If Platini’s proposal was already law, Liverpool wouldn’t have won the CL in 2005. There would have been no Garcia wonder-goal against Juve, no ‘did it cross the line?’ controversy against Chelsea, and no greatest comeback in European Cup history. Liverpool fan or not, there’s reason enough.
But hey, Sepp Blatter fully supports and endorses Platini, so everything must be fine.
20 October 2006
Change the Champions League?
English Clubs may lose 4th Champions League spot
Michel Platini, one of the greatest players to ever step on a pitch, and one of the candidates vying to replace Lennart Johansson as UEFA President, wants England, Spain, and Italy to lose a qualifying spot in the Champions League. On first glance, I don’t like the idea, primarily because it might make more trouble for Liverpool, but honestly, there’s little in Platini’s argument that I disagree with.
• On face value, four clubs from one country in the preeminent tournament in Europe seems a lot.
• There would be more TV money for the teams that did qualify. Can’t argue with more money.
• Having the 4th placed team in the Champions League dilutes the quality of the tournament. It is called the “Champions League,” and I’ve heard the argument that the old European Cup was more special because the teams that were in it deserved to be there because of the title they won, although I can’t make any claims to have experienced that.
However, Platini’s claim that it would help national champions progress to the final stages more easily is dubious. The last five winners of the CL were Barcelona, Liverpool, Porto, AC Milan, and Real Madrid. Liverpool and Porto were surprises, but Barca and Real won their league the year they won the CL, and while AC Milan was 3rd in Serie A the year they won, they can hardly be called a surprise. It is a knockout tournament. Surprises happen.
I find it hard to believe that this change will take place. One, the G-14 will fight it tooth and nail. The G-14 never takes any potential loss of revenue for their clubs lying down, and I’m sure this case will be no different. Two, fans seem happy with the current format, and Champions League revenue and ratings are up. I find it hard to believe, no matter the ineptness of soccer’s governing bodies at times, that UEFA would try and fix something that isn’t really broken.
Michel Platini, one of the greatest players to ever step on a pitch, and one of the candidates vying to replace Lennart Johansson as UEFA President, wants England, Spain, and Italy to lose a qualifying spot in the Champions League. On first glance, I don’t like the idea, primarily because it might make more trouble for Liverpool, but honestly, there’s little in Platini’s argument that I disagree with.
• On face value, four clubs from one country in the preeminent tournament in Europe seems a lot.
• There would be more TV money for the teams that did qualify. Can’t argue with more money.
• Having the 4th placed team in the Champions League dilutes the quality of the tournament. It is called the “Champions League,” and I’ve heard the argument that the old European Cup was more special because the teams that were in it deserved to be there because of the title they won, although I can’t make any claims to have experienced that.
However, Platini’s claim that it would help national champions progress to the final stages more easily is dubious. The last five winners of the CL were Barcelona, Liverpool, Porto, AC Milan, and Real Madrid. Liverpool and Porto were surprises, but Barca and Real won their league the year they won the CL, and while AC Milan was 3rd in Serie A the year they won, they can hardly be called a surprise. It is a knockout tournament. Surprises happen.
I find it hard to believe that this change will take place. One, the G-14 will fight it tooth and nail. The G-14 never takes any potential loss of revenue for their clubs lying down, and I’m sure this case will be no different. Two, fans seem happy with the current format, and Champions League revenue and ratings are up. I find it hard to believe, no matter the ineptness of soccer’s governing bodies at times, that UEFA would try and fix something that isn’t really broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)