Super Leagues Idea

[MALLEY]

Hi Folks,
Just wanted to share an idea I had. Apologies as this has probably been raised numerous times before, the idea of merging Leagues. Usually however it's mostly about the Atlantic League or a Balkan League. My idea is to go bigger, to split Europe into 2 zones probably North/South would be more suitable than East/West to accommodate winter breaks. The Big 5 club Leagues England,Spain,Germany,France and Italy would remain as they are. The remaining 50 member Nations would be split into the North/South zones 25 members each. Each zone would have a 20 team Super league at the pinnacle of which there would be relegation and promotion from National leagues. North Super League having the likes of Ajax, PSV, Zenit, Shakhtar, Celtic, Legia Warszawa etc and the South Super League having Benfica, Porto, Galatasray, Olympiakos, Qarabag etc. This would mean that there would be just 7 Leagues in Europe that fed the UEFA tournaments England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, North and South. The top 5 from each League could go into Champions league and 6th to 10th into Europa League. This would make both the CL and EL 35 team tournaments, 7 groups of 5 Teams possibly with top 2 and 2 best 3rds progressing to last 16. In my opinion it would simplify the whole set up and TV companies would surely find these new Leagues attractive. The clubs in the new zonal Super Leagues could still play in domestic cup competitions to insure national rivalries weren't completely gone. Super league TV Money should be filtered down to national Leagues also to compensate for loss of major clubs. I think alot of these national Leagues would become more competitive as a result especially with the chance of Super League playoffs at the end of it. Obviously this is most probably never going to happen but would like your thoughts, good or bad.....

[Duketown]

The Big 5 club Leagues England,Spain,Germany,France and Italy would remain as they are.

The remaining 50 member Nations would be split into the North/South zones 25 members each. Each zone would have a 20 team Super league at the pinnacle of which there would be relegation and promotion from National leagues. North Super League having the likes of Ajax, PSV, Zenit, Shakhtar, Celtic, Legia Warszawa etc and the South Super League having Benfica, Porto, Galatasray, Olympiakos, Qarabag etc. This would mean that there would be just 7 Leagues in Europe that fed the UEFA tournaments England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, North and South. The top 5 from each League could go into Champions league and 6th to 10th into Europa League. This would make both the CL and EL 35 team tournaments, 7 groups of 5 Teams possibly with top 2 and 2 best 3rds progressing to last 16. In my opinion it would simplify the whole set up and TV companies would surely find these new Leagues attractive. The clubs in the new zonal Super Leagues could still play in domestic cup competitions to insure national rivalries weren't completely gone. Super league TV Money should be filtered down to national Leagues also to compensate for loss of major clubs. I think alot of these national Leagues would become more competitive as a result especially with the chance of Super League playoffs at the end of it. Obviously this is most probably never going to happen but would like your thoughts, good or bad.....

Hi..
Even more exclusivity for big leagues???? No way!

And big 5 Leagues, England,Spain,Germany,France and Italy, doesn't exist. Only big leagues (England, Germany and Spain) and medium leagues (France, Italy and The Netherlands) exists. The rest are small leagues (<15.000 avg.) leagues.

[MALLEY]

Hi Duketown,
My thinking behind it was to make the European football especially the Champions league more competitive. As you know since Ajax 95, Porto 04 are the only team outside the 5 leagues ( maybe big 5 was wrong term to use) I mentioned to have won the tournament or even been finalists, I think. This doesn't look as if it will happen again anytime soon, infact the way it's going you might not even see Dutch Teams and the like, even in the tournament! My thinking is maybe if these big clubs from medium/small Nations were in a strong league with large TV Money funds, they would get stronger, hold on to players longer and compete in the Champions league maybe even win it. Perhaps too simplistic I know, but how long can these clubs go on the way it is. What do you think the future is for these big clubs across Europe who just can't compete?
I take your point about the French league not being classed as a big league but I would say the Italian league still is, about 5 or 6 massive clubs in there.

[Duketown]

I would also like the big clubs from smaller countries to have a more important role in CL and EL. Completely changing format is overkill as long as UEFA simply can reallocate the market poule part of prize money towards real winners. Then you'll have a fair revenue redistribution again, without HUGE impact on UEFA football.

Why do you want to give the big leagues more exclusivity? Doesn't sound really competitive to me, regardless what sponsors have to say.

And I switch those ancient athletics stadiums in Italy any day for those new and modernized football stadiums in France. The day Milan opens a new football stadium, Italian football might get fixed but for now, France clearly is the best sub-top league.

[Duketown]

ps.
Super League Hoax is a Mediterranean rumour not supported in UEFA, Germany, England, France (not sure about the Qatari) and at least 40 other member states. But maybe the Chinese or Gazprom sponsors can make a difference in UEFA voting?

[MALLEY]

I don't really want to give the big Leagues more exclusivity I just feel that is way it is and the way it is going. Will UEFA ever do what needs done as far as fair revenue distribution is concerned. Maybe these "super Leagues" would give the others a chance to create there own big bucks revenue. In a perfect world I'd like to go back to Champions League for Champions only, that would spread the wealth around Europe more evenly. Unfortunately UEFA or the Sponsors wouldn't be too enthusiastic about that.

[Duketown]

Yes, Champions-only League and pré-Bosman are history and slot exclusivity is incompatible with fair competition.
Simple

We already have a Super League, still called Champions League. Ditch slot exclusivity (in favor of subtop leagues) and give the market poule prize money to real winners!

No need to mis-use UEFA for artificial growth; those smaller leagues indeed are better of organising a Nordic League or a Balkan league but Baltic league showed it's not easy. Competition has winners and losers.

[krdel]

I like the idea, but without Russia, so top6 plus two leagues.

But they would never support it.

[Tazmania]

And I switch those ancient athletics stadiums in Italy any day for those new and modernized football stadiums in France. The day Milan opens a new football stadium, Italian football might get fixed but for now, France clearly is the best sub-top league.

Italy is definitely a top league alongside Spain, England and Germany, not only in terms of the quality on the pitch but also in terms of global interest and significance.

You also overlook the new stadium which is scheduled to open in Rome for season 2020-21, which is being described as the best in Europe (by some Italians)!

[Duketown]

And I switch those ancient athletics stadiums in Italy any day for those new and modernized football stadiums in France. The day Milan opens a new football stadium, Italian football might get fixed but for now, France clearly is the best sub-top league.

Italy is definitely a top league alongside Spain, England and Germany, not only in terms of the quality on the pitch but also in terms of global interest and significance.

Have you got references?

As far as I can see, Italy is behind in all regards to Top 3 leagues and also is surpassed by France, who also have a much higher growth rate.

Only difference is the more successful Italian history.

As for stadiums in Italy: 25 years of blah blah is the reason Italy lost their status.

[Tazmania]

Anyone who has followed UEFA football closely - or even not so closely - over the last 5, 10, 20, or 50 years knows that Italy stands alongside the other big three and far away from France. I won't debate this point.

New Italian stadiums have already opened during the last five years in Turin, Udine and Frosinone, plans have been approved in Rome where work is schedueld to begin in the Spring and further stadium projects are being planned and progressed in Bergamo, Florence and Cagliari to name only three.

[Duketown]

Anyone who has followed UEFA football closely - or even not so closely - over the last 5, 10, 20, or 50 years knows that Italy stands alongside the other big three and far away from France. I won't debate this point.

Cool. Then my statement still stand:

Italy is not a top league anymore. Simple read UEFA benchmark report. Besides, last decade already showed that top players don't choose Italy anymore.

New Italian stadiums have already opened during the last five years in Turin, Udine and Frosinone, plans have been approved in Rome where work is schedueld to begin in the Spring and further stadium projects are being planned and progressed in Bergamo, Florence and Cagliari to name only three.

More blah blah.

All other countries have been growing their infrastructure the last 20 years. Italy only in Turin and some minor projects. The rest are failed projects, over and over again.

Those projects you mention won't even reduce the gap since the real top leagues are growing faster. But still, getting finally rid of some tracks is a huge step for Italy.

A simple comparison:
Bergamo, Florence and Cagliari are EASILY offset with Espanyol, Celta and Bilboa. Then you still can add Wanda stadium in Madrid while renewed Camp Nou is already on it's way. Comparing Italy with Germany or England is plain silly.

[Tazmania]

About stadium infrastructure I agree, at least until the present and the near future, but things are changing relatively quickly in that respect.

UEFA benchmark report, while no doubt instructive, is not comprehensive. The UEFA Country Ranking shows how Italy's clubs have performed over the last five seasons. I don't see how you can argue with that, unless you don't believe the ranking table (which is identical on this site and at uefa.com).

[Tazmania]

There are plenty of top players left in Serie A, you don't reach two UCL finals in three seasons (Juventus) with good to mediocre players.

[Duketown]

UEFA benchmark report, while no doubt instructive, is not comprehensive. The UEFA Country Ranking shows how Italy's clubs have performed over the last five seasons. I don't see how you can argue with that, unless you don't believe the ranking table (which is identical on this site and at uefa.com).

To be a top league, I argue that UEFA country ranking isn't comprehensive. Better look at where top players choose to play and that is easy to deduct from UEFA benchmark report. Those players go where the money and the fans are.
Only metric disrupting this, is TV money and that's the only metric Italy can keep up.

Why do you think Italian players, for the first time in history, choose to play in foreign leagues? There is no mama in foreign countries so it must be something else.

Anyway, France already passed Italy in most regards and France also has a better growth perspective. Only metric that didn't catch up yet, is UEFA Ranking.

There are plenty of top players left in Serie A, you don't reach two UCL finals in three seasons (Juventus) with good to mediocre players.

Luckily for football fans, Juventus shows a club with good management from suptop league can still have good performance in Europe. But Italy (actually Juventus) is performing great, no way around that. The difference is that in the past such results were normal and nowadays it's overperforming.