This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Problem 2

Author: Polak Date: 01-08-2008, 17:39

This is to do with the glass ceiling between little clubs and big clubs. UEFA is an organisation that wants money, it wants lots of viewers to watch the Champions League and UEFA Cup but particularly the Champions League so it wants some of the best teams in it, this is why it continues to throw money at the big clubs and do as much as it can for there to be more games with big clubs in them and a final with 2 big clubs in it. When Porto played Monaco it was a disaster for UEFA, there was not as much interest as there usually is and UEFA want to avoid this. Money is not everything but it does a lot, it can get facilities, a great coach and great players, a lot of the big teams have money, a lot of it from UEFA. Why is when it is obvious that teams from Italy or Spain are strong sides with lots of money and teams from Bulgaria, Poland, Israel, Lithuania etc are teams with close to no money compared to the big teams, why is it that UEFA would allow more big teams in to a competition and less of the little ones, would it not be fairer the other way round? A little club with a great player will be in a mess as a big team can poach the player for little money, if a big team buys from a big team they have to pay a lot more money and those are just some of the inequalities in football. That is why big teams are going to stay big and little teams little. I might add more later on.

Re: Problem 2

Author: cska Date: 01-08-2008, 19:57

Polak It took me some efforts, but I think I understood your point... Unfortunately (fopr the smaller countries), you are right... However, "smaller" countries will now have better chances to enter CL. 5 spots are reserved for champions of countries 13-53. And also, countries from 11 to 13th place will now have direct access of champion to CL GS. So, maybe we can again have top team final, but at least more smaller teams will have a chance to fight with the big ones. In football is like in life - the only way to become big when you are small is to defeat the big ones. You cannot become big if you always beat the small ones and lose to the big ones. Many years ago, teams like Dinamo Kiev, Spartak Moscow, Fenerbahce and Galatasaray were absolute underdogs in CL and even in UC. But they managed to beat some giants and are now famous and respected clubs. Many years ago Galatasaray was just an underdog in a CL group, but they beat Milan 3-2 in the final round and qualified for UC which they won beating Arsenal. And now they are big (or at least, "not that small").

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 01-08-2008, 20:20

Polak, If I understood your point, I totally disagree with you. You see the CL as a competition where teams go to get money- 5 million euros, 10, etc... (It’s not important how much). So, the “poor teams” need the money, so they “deserve” to go to the CL (I won’t write PLAY the CL, since apparently the main objective is simply to go there get the cash). And the “rich teams” don’t need the money, so they don’t deserve to go there. I hope UEFA sees the CL as a competition where the best European teams are supposed to be. If “the best European teams” means only 10 or 12 countries will be represented, I don’t see a problem with that. I see a problem if year after year a lot of “0-0-6” (0 wins 0 draws 6 defeats) teams start to compete.

Re: Problem 2
Author: cska Date: 01-08-2008, 20:33	Dragonite There is no problem with 0-0-6 teams. They need to gain some experience and come back later to improve the record. Also, the "big" teams need some "small" teams to beat them. Every team in GS deserves its place there, EXCEPT the direct access teams, which go there by default. If the 0-0-6 team beat a big team in QR3, what is their fault then???

Re: Problem 2
Author: Polak Date: 02-08-2008, 00:10	Dragonite I am simply stating that the method used here is feed the rich and make them a lot richer and therefore better and make it difficult for the poor, I agree with cska, it is kind of like life.

Re: Problem 2
Author: Dragonite Date: 02-08-2008, 00:27	No, Polak. I believe the method used here is “We just want the best teams in our elite competition; we don’t want bad teams in the CL”. It has nothing to do with rich or poor, it has to do with good and bad. It’s not the same thing.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Polak Date: 02-08-2008, 00:33

No Dragonite it has nothing to do with good or bad, it is to do with what brings the ratings. Porto v Monaco did not, it was not popular, they were the best teams in the Champions League that year and got to the final but UEFA would prefer more well known teams to be in the final. I remember a lot of people say they did not watch that match as they did not care about it and this is what UEFA do not want

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 02-08-2008, 00:59

That’s pathetic. I like football, and I like the Champions League, so I’ll always watch the CL final, no matter which teams are playing it. Being a FC Porto fan, the 2004 final was my favourite. Are you saying that UEFA only wants “popular teams” in its competitions?? What is a popular team anyway?? Is it a team whose fans follow it (Celtic would fit this category) or maybe a team who is known because its players show up in commercials (Real Madrid & Barcelona fit this category)?? UEFA just wants good teams in the CL, teams able to perform a good show. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Re: Problem 2

Author: badgerboy Date: 02-08-2008, 11:55

Polak What evidence do you have that the Porto-Monaco final was "not popular"? And even if that really was the case (which I doubt) where's the evidence of UEFA changing things since then to make it more difficult for the same to happen again? The only changes since 2004 are those happening next year & they are bringing more "small" (well actually I would say "medium") teams into the competition. The big clubs (and the big five leagues in general) probably do have "too much money for the good of football" but without the money they get from the Champions League those outside that "big five" (even big clubs like PSV & Porto) - even indeed some clubs inside the "big five" who don't get a "fair share" of their domestic revenue (Spanish clubs like Valencia & Villarreal spring to mind) would have considerably less.

Re: Problem 2

Author: cska Date: 02-08-2008, 13:38

Polak I think we cannot prove whether Porto-Monaco was a popular TV broadcast or not, unless we have the TV ratings here. Dragonite You only stated your own opinion and call Polak's arguments "pathetic". Sorry, but the fact that YOU would watch ANY CL final, is not like every fan in the world would do the same like you. But, YOU are right - we have no objective criteria to say what is a "desired-by-UEFA" team. Porto is a famous team. But, I agree with Polak, maybe a final Chelsea-Real Madrid would have been much more profitable for UEFA than Porto-Monaco. At least, check the fan base, and not only the one in Europe. How many Asians (paying crazy money for football stuff) know Chelsea and Real and how many know Porto? Sorry, but humans are biased towards present. We call "fashion" what is popular today. The yesterday "fashion" is called "retro" today. Badgerboy I don't agree with you that UEFA tried to allow more small or medium teams to CL GS. In the initial plan of Platini (also available on Bert's page), it was a fact. But later on, the "big sticks" forced him to change it. And now, we have even MORE top 5 teams in CL GS. Now, the 3rd teams of top 3 countries have direct access. Now 22 of the 32 spots are "reserved" and not 16 like it was. Now 5 of the spots are reserved for non-champions of 1-15 countries. And only 5 spots are given to champions of 14-53. In fact, the most harmed group of teams, is the "medium" one. We will have more "small" teams from 14-53, more teams from top 3 and LESS teams from the 6-15 countries. Somehow, Platini offered trinkets to the minnows and protected the giants by axeing the moderate quality teams.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 02-08-2008, 14:19

I’m sorry, cska, but in my opinion it is pathetic to say that people don’t watch the final of a big football tournament because the participants aren’t “famous” (whatever that means). I like to watch the European Championship… So, I’ll always watch the final, no matter if it is Spain vs. Germany or Russia vs. Turkey. As far as I’m concerned, it’s exactly the same, it’s THE EURO FINAL what I want to watch, not Spain or Germany or France or Italy. The same about the World Cup… I like to watch the World Cup; I’ll always watch the final, no matter if it is Brazil vs. Germany or Turkey vs. South Korea. NOTE that I like FOOTBALL… Those people you mention, probably they like a superhero “Beckham” or “Ronaldinho” that they watched in a commercial. If the “superhero” isn’t playing, they won’t watch. And the same happens with the CL, UEFA Cup, etc… I like to watch these competitions. I’ll watch the finals no matter who is playing. Zenit vs. Rangers is exactly the same as Valencia vs. Marseille; I watch it because it’s the UEFA CUP FINAL, not because I want to watch Barthez, Drogba & Baraja.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Overgame Date: 02-08-2008, 17:30

I agree with Dragonite. I'm a fan of football. I watch most of the games , only half-cheking the teams to decide which game. If UEFA wanted more money and more big teams, they could just create a semi-close CL. That's not hard to do : the last16 are qualified for the next CLGS of the next season, and you give the last 16 spots via the current qualifying system. Or even worst : UEFA could decide to invite some teams (like Milan, Bayern last year, etc) and give a few spots via a qualifying system. But they don't. And they have increased the difficulty for the last team of the top countries to get a spot.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 03-08-2008, 12:40

Cska, One last comment about the “supposed millions of fans” that Real Madrid, Chelsea, etc… have in Asia. Those millions of people in Asia (like China, for instance) that are supposed to be Real Madrid, Chelsea, etc… fans, the majority of them barely have money to eat. How are they going to pay 60 euros for a Real Madrid shirt? Even if it’s cheaper there, let’s say, 12 euros, it’s still a lot of money… If several of them have Real Madrid shirts, they buy them in the fairs, unofficial shirts, for something like 0.5 euros… And Real Madrid gets nothing for it! If UEFA really cares about those “supposed fans”, why do they play the games at 20:45 CET?? It’s too late to watch in Asia, in Japan it should be like 3 or 4 AM. If UEFA cared about those “supposed fans”, the games would be played at 15:00 CET, for instance. I’d agree with you if you told me that UEFA wants all the “big guys” in the CL, because without some of them it becomes a less interesting competition… However, once they’re “there”, I don’t think they want Real Madrid in the final. Some years ago I actually thought they wanted Real Madrid to go as far as possible… but not anymore.

Re: Problem 2

Author: panda Date: 03-08-2008, 12:51

There is the argument (which I remember bert has advanced) that what UEFA is doing is making a compromise between a more open or more random format (the way these cups used to be straight KO, no seeding) and the interests of the big clubs + countries paying a lot for TV revenue. If UEFA do not make a compromise, the big clubs / TV companies break away. If UEFA give way completely to big clubs, then it fails in its mission to be trying to develop football in all European countries. This is kind of a microcosm of the issues the EU faces as a political and economic entity.

Re: Problem 2
Author: Malko Date: 03-08-2008, 12:53	It is sure that with the actual policy the bigger will be bigger and bigger and the smaller smaller and smaller... No more Bruges or Steaua or Porto in Championsleague Final, there will be only matches with Spanish, Engish, Italian, French or German teams

Re: Problem 2

Author: cska Date: 03-08-2008, 13:04

Dragonite West Europeans will always believe that in China all the people are poor and barely have something to eat. That's the inheritance from the Cold War - communists will always claim that in USA many people live in misery and WEuropean and US people will claim that communist countries are poor and people barely survive there. Why don't you travel for the Olympics to check this? China is a country like any other - many people are poor, some are in the middle and few are rich. Well, the standard for "poor" people is higher in Europe, but that does not change distribution. Anywhere in the world we have some rich people and rest have to work hard to earn for their living. Even in WEurope. Don't forget that 100% of Real Madrid's shirts, socks and boots are made in China, Indonesia and other Asian countries. I guess they may pick up some of the shirts from the line and sell them "under the table"... Believe me, there are enough rich people from China who care about football. And what about the other crazy-about-football country - Japan. Are Japanese unable to pay 60 euros for a shirt? UEFA would not assign games at 15:00 CET, because Asian fans are important, but European fans are a must. Who will go to the stadium during working hours? And you together with another friend here expressed your view - that you don't care who plays the CL final - you'll watch it. Me too. I watch ANY final regardless of participants. But why do you think that ALL people in Europe should be the same like us? CL finals are often watched even by people who don't care too much about the QF's or SF's and the football itself. UEFA wants the giants, because even persons barely interested in football know their names. My mother does not care about football, but always watched the games Zidane took part in. My wife hates football, but when Brazil plays, she watches. She does not give a f* about Bulgarian teams and our championship, but watches Man Utd and Real Madrid. And you don't know how her girlfriends watch football only when giant teams play, because they want to watch their "handsome", rich, famous, heavily advertised men on the pitch. Yeah, there are many women, who don't care about football, but want to watch some "handsome" men struggling on the pitch. And TV attendance is important. Even if not for UEFA (but it is) - then for their sponsors. And sponsors want commercials on TV. They want fame. They want ratings. MasterCard and Heineken would not give a single euro to UEFA if there was not enough TV and stadium attendance.

Re: Problem 2

Author: cska Date: 03-08-2008, 13:11

I agree with Malko. But UEFA is not to blame for that. The fact is that the last team in English premiership earns almost like the winner of CL. Strength of teams is decided domestically. If domestic league provides big business and big money, then no matter which team goes to CL/UC, this team can reach QF's, SF's or even the final. Even if the CL winner earned 50 million euros, this would not be enough even for 2 top class strikers. Now Man Utd thinks to pay or not to pay 45 million euros for Berbatov. CL money are decisive for smaller clubs, but the big sticks earn a lot more domestically. That's why in the long-term the English policy proved to be better. Little by little they climbed on top. And now they are the best. Not only the big 4. Their sub-top teams do well in UC. Maybe not too well, but still well enough.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 03-08-2008, 13:31

Cska, If, according to you, the “Beckhams” and “Ronaldinhos” should be playing the CL finals, to attract the women crowd, who just watch football to watch them, then… Well, the WTA should do the same about tennis finals… They should make sure that only pretty tennis players, like Sharapova or Ivanovic, reach the finals… It isn’t important if Davenport or Mauresmo may play better, they must be eliminated because they’re uglier! Do you really think that WTA has this concern??? Of course they don’t! Then why should UEFA have a similar concern??? UEFA should care about ME, YOU, Overgame, and all the other REAL FOOTBALL FANS… They shouldn’t waste 1 second trying to please people who just like to watch the Beckhams and Ronaldinhos.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Overgame Date: 03-08-2008, 13:48

cska : about England, i only have one word : LOL (ok, that's 3 words :p). Italy and Spain proved what happens when you start to buy everyone and their sister. You are at the top during a few years, than your clubs start to have a lot of financial problems and the results start to decline. About UEFA, if the point was to have big names, they could create a semi-closed league. They could give an wild-card to Milan, Parma, etc and many others 'big' names. But they don't. As Dragonite said, the main point is to have the best teams, based on results and not names. UEFA has just limitated the factor 'luck'. Now, you can't win the cup without winning against some giants, and that's probably better. I want to see the best teams of the season in final. Could it be Porto-Monaco or Barcelona-Liverpool, i don't care. In the early 90's, you could win with only one good game ...

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 03-08-2008, 13:53

Malko, Based on what you put France alongside England, Italy, Spain & Germany??? I’ve noticed that it’s common in this forum to mention the “big 5” being those 4 + France. I ask you, what has France ever done to be alongside those 4? In over 50 years of UEFA competitions, France only managed to win 2 Cups… Even Scotland has a better record. When it comes to “recent achievements”, France has 1 team who reached the CL last 16 over the last 2 seasons (Lyon) - Scotland too (Celtic). French teams reached 2 finals recently (Monaco & Marseille 2004) and lost both- Scotland too (Celtic 2003 & Rangers 2008). You will say that France has more teams reaching the last stages of these cups… So what?? If you have more teams, you have a higher probability of at least one ending up winning it, or at least reaching the final… But still, your record isn’t better than the Scottish. By the way, I consider France better than Scotland… This was just to show you that your results are nothing special. So, back to the main question: Based on what you are alongside England, Italy, Spain & Germany in the so called “big 5”?? Are you aware that Russia won as many European Cups in the last 4 years as France in its entire history?? Are you aware that Holland & Portugal have a much better history than France? And not just ancient history, Holland’s and Portugal’s latest achievements (Ajax 1995, Feyenoord 2002, FC Porto 2003 & 2004) are younger than French achievements (Marseille 1993 & PSG 1996). Where is the evidence that in the future the French teams will be playing finals against Spanish, German, English and Italian teams, and all the other teams will disappear??

Re: Problem 2

Author: Kaiser Date: 03-08-2008, 14:34 Edited by: Kaiser at: 03-08-2008, 14:36

I’ve noticed that it’s common in this forum to mention the “big 5” being those 4 + France. I ask you, what has France ever done to be alongside those 4? First, it was top-7: Spain, England, Italy, France, Germany, Portugal and Netherlands. Then, it became top-6: Spain, England, Italy, France, Germany and Portugal After Portugal quitted from top-6 in the ranking, it became top-5: England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France. Now it is top-4... It's interesting to see that Russian league is usually the border of 'top-' and others

Re: Problem 2

Author: 5UCLGSteams Date: 03-08-2008, 15:25

Polak, I just want to point out the situation of BATE Borisov(BLR). Let's take it as an example. They've almost (but have good chances after a 2-1 (away win) against Anderlecht) managed to get for the second consecutive year in the 3rd QR where they were not seeded(according to the old format ending this year). They could have met teams like Barcelona but last year they've got Steaua this year if they manage to pass Anderlecht they will get Levski. According to the current system of QF to UCL GS, they got very lucky and they avoided those "big teams" you were talking about which woukld have made their road to the GS almost impossible. From next year on, due to the changes UEFA did to the qualifying rounds it will be impossible for BATE, if they become again champions, to get any of the teams from countries ranked higher than 13 in their attempt to taste savour(means also money from UEFA) of the CL GS. They will only play against champions from countries ranked lower than 12.And if they cannot pass them then they do not deserve CL attention I guess. I don't say UEFA is perfect,but I have to notice last changes in CL QRs are really brilliant in helping "underdogs" champions make it to the CL GS...it's only up to them to get there, now they have their places booked What I want to say is that the new format is clearly helping any champion to get to the group stage.There won't be anymore "Barcelona" stopping teams like "BATE" in the 3rd QR and this being considered inappropriate.But of course there will be more like "Schalke-Atletico" Also I give you the example of CRF Cluj, romanian champions this year. 5 years ago they were playing in the 3rd league, now they play in the CL.No one stopped them to reach "Big Names" company. And about transfers it is also about tradition and glory.If you think (as a player) that you can play a CL level, but your team does not help you for years, surely at one moment you will leave that team searching for your own highest moments of glory, and what team offers you that?.....a team that is regularly there, at the highest level. I just let you know what 90% of the players bought by CFR Cluj and Steaua this summer said: "I came here because I have the chance to play in the Champions League"...it is not always about money, but about glory too.

Re: Problem 2

Author: cska Date: 03-08-2008, 18:26 Edited by: cska at: 03-08-2008, 18:27

Dragonite You exaggerated my words and that's really stupid (I hate offending words, but this is really stupid). I just gave you an example that if famous teams and star players appear at the CL final, then a lot more TV watchers switch their TV's to watch football. Reasons may vary. You cannot blame women that they want to watch Beckham or anyone else... Just like you, I want UEFA to take care of REAL football fans. But UEFA don't give a f* for people (fans or non-fans). UEFA care about money. If the big sponsors quit, then there's no prize money for CL and no big interest by the major clubs. The big sponsors want PR and image making. They want TV audience. They DO NOT care if REAL fans watch the CL final or just casual TV spectators. They want their brands and goods to reach the eyes and minds of the audience, regardless of audience's inclination towards football. Now, I think you will not exaggerate my words and will not put your position as universal for all TV viewers. Overgame Thank you for your 3 words, but they changed nothing. I support my opinion about England. Only in PL clubs get so much money from TV rights and merchandising. Spain and Italy are lagging behind. Real Madrid recently sold its stadium to the government for 700 M euros. They enjoyed big money for several years, but buying each and every expensive player brings some victories, but soon everything fades out. Now, Real Madrid don't have so much money to buy everyone and is not up to the level of Man Utd and Chelsea. If a club does not want to sell its assets to get money, then the club must secure a decent annual revenue. Otherwise, the club will sink in the long term. In England, Abramovich is the only "real fan" who gives much more than expects to recover. But still the TV and merchandising incomes of Chelsea are enormous compared to money in other countries. I remember we had some threads about TV money and the annual budgets of teams in various European countries. You can see there what a big gap it is between England and the other top countries.

Re: Problem 2

Author: cska Date: 03-08-2008, 18:34

Overgame UEFA indeed created a semi-closed league. CL GS will have 22 (!) reserved spots, 5 for top countries non-champions and only 5 for champions of non-top countries. UEFA did not create a FULLY closed CL, because many TV viewers like Chelsea or Real Madrid, but also want to see clubs from their own country playing against the big ones. So, Platini tried to balance between satisfying the big sticks (granting now direct access to 3rd teams of top 3 countries) and satisfying those minor countries which elected him with their votes. Actually, CL now is attractive for many people and will be more attractive, because now quality and diversity will be balanced. Many people will look their compatriots playing in CL, while at the same time watching the magic football of some giant clubs. But, believe me, GS is not all about CL. If any minor team reaches CL final, then UEFA will not be quite pleased from financial point of view. And if two underdogs reach the final - then the TV rating will drop significantly. But I AS A FAN will be the happiest in the world!

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 03-08-2008, 19:11

Cska, I also gave you an example… For a big part of potential male audience in a tennis match, a Sharapova vs. Ivanovic is a more “attractive” game than a Mauresmo vs. Davenport. The first game will have more TV viewers. You think that if the CL prize money was lower, teams wouldn’t want to play it??!! I disagree. It’s the CL, teams play if for glory, not for money… At least the best teams do it. Maybe the teams who know that they don’t have a chance to win it just play it to collect the money, but the best teams play it to win the cup. If the CL prize money was 10 million euros, and the UEFA Cup was 50 million euros, the best teams would still want to play the CL. It’s better to be the European Champion with 10 million euros in your pocket, than having 50 million euros in your pocket but being just the “Division 2 champion”. It is worrying that a lot of teams see the CL as a good competition to play to “get money”. Maybe UEFA should do something about that, and only give money to the teams that collect points. So, the 0-0-6 teams would leave the way they arrived, with 0 euros (and the embarrassment of losing every game). It is annoying to see that in this forum (almost) everybody talks a lot about budgets, TV ratings, etc… A bunch of things that have very little to do with football. And they talk about these things as if they were all that matters.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Overgame Date: 03-08-2008, 19:20

No Uefa haven't created a semi-closed league. Lowest countries will have more chance to qualify. 5 spots sure for the countries ranked 14th+. Let's check how many of them were qualified in the last 5 years : I'm using the ranking of the previous year (the ranking used for the berths) : 2007 : Rosenborg - Fenerbahce - Slavia Praha - Besiktas : 4 2006 : København - Levski - Steaua : 3 2005 : Petrzalska - Rapid Wien - Rosenborg : 3 There is always big changes between the 9th and 21st spots. If everything was decided during qualifications, we'd probably see less newcomers !

Re: Problem 2

Author: isidromv Date: 03-08-2008, 20:51

I also think that giving 3 direct spots to top countries is not an advantage. England, Spain and Italy always had at least 3 teams in CL, since the 2+2 scheme was implemented, and in most seasons they had 4 teams. With the new system they will also have 3 teams, but it will be more difficult for the 4th one to qualify. Of course you can always argue that 3+1 is bettert than 2+2 looking only at the numbers, but the different qualification routes shall also be taken into account.

Re: Problem 2
Author: amirbachar Date: 03-08-2008, 21:41	I agree with isidromv. If anything it just making more fair qualification, since if an unseeded team meets Barcelona for example, it has no real chance of qualifying, even if is a really good team. In the new system, the draw won't matter so much as it is now.

Re: Problem 2
Author: Kaiser Date: 03-08-2008, 22:25	Also agree with isidromv. I also think that UEFA should not give countries 11-15 an extra berth.

Re: Problem 2
Author: cska Date: 04-08-2008, 00:44	I agree with overgame, isidrom and amirbachar. However, I disagree with Kaiser - the extra berth for 11-15th countries is necessary as a way to avoid shocking change from 4 to 6 teams in Europe. there must be some countries with 5 teams in Europe.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Kaiser Date: 04-08-2008, 01:49

However, I disagree with Kaiser - the extra berth for 11-15th countries is necessary as a way to avoid shocking change from 4 to 6 teams in Europe. there must be some countries with 5 teams in Europe. Maybe not 11-15 but I think CL berths from countries 13-15 are senseless. So letting extra berths from countries can cause champion of these country not playing in groups while runner-up playing in groups which is not champions league - so we return to the endless problem (last season's Slavia - Sparta problem, e.g.). The best format of non-champions qualification would be 12 teams from countries 1-12 and 6 winners going to groups. It's perfect, I think.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Polak Date: 04-08-2008, 20:20

[quote>That’s pathetic. I like football, and I like the Champions League, so I’ll always watch the CL final, no matter which teams are playing it. Being a FC Porto fan, the 2004 final was my favourite. Are you saying that UEFA only wants “popular teams” in its competitions??[/quote> Dragonite I know you like to watch a tournament and it does not matter who plays, you watch. I know you would watch Russia v Turley in the final of Euro 2008 if that was the case and I also would and so would other people but generally a lot of people would not want to see that final as it is not interesting enough for them to watch. Believe it or not there are teams that a nuetral fanwould rather watch more than other teams. I remember when the World Cup was on in Korea and Japan and when it was Germany v South Korea in the SEMI FINAL a lot of people said the match was a match they simply had no interest in. Yes believe it or not a lot of people, in fact most of the people who watch would rather watch guys like Ronaldinho or Zidane (when he played) etc as they prefer to see great players. So many different advertisements are made on television with big name footballers as this is what a lot of people like to see, I am not saying it is right but that is the way it is.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Dragonite Date: 04-08-2008, 21:35

So, Polak, according to you, FIFA, UEFA, and other tournament organizers, before each tournament they wish that the “popular teams” go as far as possible, otherwise the tournament will be a fiasco from a financial perspective?? I already wrote it above, some years ago I had the feeling that UEFA “wanted” Real Madrid in the CL final. They always had easy groups; even in those easy groups the referee decisions were all to benefit Real Madrid… I remember things such as Lokomotiv Moscow being robbed in Madrid. The last time I had a feeling that UEFA “wanted” someone in the final was in 2005/2006 with Barcelona. In the last 2 CL editions I haven’t noticed any bias to any team, though… Perhaps there was, but if there was I haven’t noticed it. Trying to get back to the original problem you pointed… In my opinion, the big problem is the teams who only see the CL as a way to get a few million euros just for being there… UEFA shouldn’t give a single euro to teams who lose every game (so, no prize for participation), and should re-distribute that extra money by raising the prize for wins and draws and reaching the next stages. For instance, I read in the Portuguese press that Vitória de Guimarães wants to reach the CL to get the prize of 5 million euros… And do you know what they intend to do with the money?? Instead of signing good players, perform a good show and honour the country, they intend to pay debts!! This attitude disgusts me.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Polak Date: 04-08-2008, 21:43

Okay well I am glad that you see that uefa do want the popular teams in because it gets more money and high views of the match and popularity is not based on success it is based on how well the team is marketed and how many fans it has. Man U has lots of fans over the world and is an incredibly popular club but if you compare them to say Bayern Munich, they have actually achieved less than them in pure trophies but they have a greater popularity. As for some teams being in the Champions League for money, yes it is true, I agree UEFA is doing a bad thing by giving money just to compete.

Re: Problem 2

Author: putzeijs Date: 05-08-2008, 20:06

Football should be passion. For most of us fans it is. For the Bobos and the owners of the big teams it is all about the money. Unfortunally. If the big money comes from TV in Champions League, they want to be there as much as possible. So they need at least 3 teams from the top 3 leagues to be sure. If not they would create a league on their own. I'm the first to admid that UEFA tries to compromise between big and small, between passion and money. But if you don't see that money rules more and more the game you are blind. If sport was all about passion, an Olympic medal/experience should be the biggest thing to get. Buth everywhere in Europe (Belgium, Spain, Germany, ...) teams are trying tho prevent their players to participate. It is just about the money.

Re: Problem 2

Author: DiscoStu Date: 05-08-2008, 21:35

Uefa do not care about small teams & any changes are just cosmetic. Until Uefa remove the advantage where teams from same countries cannot meet each other until the later stages of the competition then the big countries will always have an advantage. When you have two teams in the draw - say England with same ranking points as one from say Norway the English team will always have an advantage as they cannot meet other English teams in the qualifying rounds or group stages. This is unfair & has nothing to do with seeding.

Re: Problem 2

Author: Ricardo Date: 05-08-2008, 22:34

I am very curious what will happen the next 5-10 years. To me, like cska, it seems that the cost of having more champions of lower ranked countries is put on the positions 6-12. That looks like the top-5 (top-3 +strong teams from top8) will have more dominance over the CL than before as some mid-class teams will be replaced by lower class. That could mean that the GS will become less attractive, generating less money causing another format-change. That change will never go at teh expense of the top-countries as there should be made more money, Uefa think, so more top teams, then the lower ranked countries will lose their spot to the mid ranked countries. Back where we are now... Another option is, which is also mentioned here, that the lower ranked champions can attract pretty good players (maybe players going into early-retirement or so) because it is an easy route to play CL. Players who earn billions, fighting to avoid relegation each year in England might for a year or two go for the CL instead of the money (did I say that? Of course they don't), making the lower ranked teams stronger, causing maybe even for an upset or 2 each year.... Now I hope that the second scenario is going to happen.....