Soon (probably in late April), UEFA will confirm the change to the Champions League in terms of both form and access. These reforms, which begin in 2024, are heavily inclined to support the already wealthy teams of the already wealthy league, as are most of the changes since the tournament was founded in 1992.
It is presented as UEFA, which has no choice but to choose the smaller of the two evils. It will make concessions to big clubs, but it’s a better option than watching them completely ignore the Champions League and form their own super league. I’ve had these threats before, but this time I felt credible. As I wrote in October.. Interest rates are close to zero, private equity firms are flooded with money, and top clubs are running out of cash due to pandemics. real Madrid, Barcelona And Manchester United They will do just that and use leverage to open up better deals for themselves, forming their own withdrawal competition and sharing revenue among them or appearing to have happened. Leverage.
The influence of the pandemic, the need to use buzzwords among football executives, the innovative format, and the reminder that club football is a business, to justify loading more rich and powerful dice. will be used. But that debate doesn’t hold water, and Bundesliga CEO Christian Seifert recently said it best in the Financial Times football summit business.
“The brutal truth is that some of these so-called superclubs are actually poorly managed cash combustors, and in the tremendous growth of 10 years, somehow become a sustainable business model. I couldn’t get close to it, “he said.
For some reason, financial fair play keeps costs down, despite 10 years of continuous growth where European clubs are doubling their bottom line (most of the growth is at the top). Despite (and guaranteeing that the entire system has been profitable in the last three seasons before the pandemic), some of the biggest clubs in the game are over-expanded and short of cash. I am aware of that.
And their solution is to make almost permanent changes that only help to widen the gap between those who have and those who don’t.The details are still rough and will be subject to last-minute horse trading, but after consultation with clubs and leagues, the Champions League seems to introduce four additional teams. What is called a “Swiss model” This will increase the number of group games from 6 to 10, give the French League another auto-spot, set up a safety net and automatically up to two clubs with good European pedigree (UEFA coefficient rankings). You will be able to pass the qualifying.
You will have time to analyze new formats, especially the “Swiss model”. Once confirmed, I guarantee, but I can hardly understand. But broadly speaking, the idea is to have more European games and generate more money to offset the damage caused by the pandemic. I don’t hate clubs that play more European games because it’s worth it. This includes the Europa Conference League. It will start next season..
With hundreds of top European clubs, we never play international football. And of all the clubs that do so, the season ends by September. Why shouldn’t they play? Also, trying to squeeze more money out of the Champions League and Europa League is not always a problem. These are professional clubs. They run a business. In addition, of the € 3.25 billion ($ 4 billion) generated by these competitions, approximately € 400 million ($ 485 million) will return to support grassroots, national associations and other development initiatives.
There is no doubt that these are tough times for the club, especially as COVID-19 measures require the stadium to be closed longer than expected and broadcasters demand rebates. Back in September, the European Club Association estimated that the club would take hits around 4 billion euros ($ 4.85 billion) in two seasons.. In January, ECA President Andrea Agnelli estimated an upward revision to a loss of € 6.5 billion ($ 8 billion) to € 8.5 billion ($ 10.3 billion).
And obviously, absolutely, bigger clubs with bigger stadiums (and therefore more matchday income) and bigger TV deals are bearing the brunt of these losses.But grated de facto Land acquisition by a big club that not only wants more for themselves, but also wants additional insurance against gasping! -I couldn’t qualify for the Champions League in the form of additional locations. (And face it. If you’re one of the half-dozen super clubs outside the Premier League, you really have to spoil something fierce to qualify for the status quo. There is.)
It’s wrong on two levels. First and foremost, it’s just unethical. People in big clubs always justify the fact that they have gained a larger share of their income with the fact that they take more “entrepreneurial risk”-that is, to win the biggest stars and sponsors. Spending more and fans are paying to see those players. It is their presence that makes the money, not Scandelbeu vs. Midtjylland. Therefore, 15% of the Champions League revenue will be distributed based on the size of the club’s domestic league television market, the “market pool.” If you’re in the Premier League, Serie A, or Bundesliga, you’ll get a lot because these are big TV markets in the big powers. If you are from Albania or Denmark … not much.
That’s why an additional 20% of revenue is distributed based on the “coefficient ranking”. Basically, if you’ve done well in Europe in the last decade, you’ll get more out of it than if you didn’t. The argument here is that successful teams in the past will help build the Champions League brand and deserve more rewards. (This is actually also a way to spend more money on the established elite.)
No thank you. But “entrepreneurial risk” is exactly that: risk. With so many in-game skins, hopefully you’ll get more benefits. But likewise, that means you lose more when things go wrong. It is a free market economy 101.Another aspect is that we are talking about what we make. de facto Permanent changes that only make it more difficult for others to compete. In theory, of course, they aren’t permanent-UEFA works every three years-but in the real world, all format changes introduced since the founding of the 1992 convention are bigger clubs. A larger country that has benefited.
This means that once toothpaste comes out, it will not return to the tube. No one wants to see the club go bankrupt. But-what do you guess? -At the highest level, it’s virtually impossible. You can reduce wage bills. Debt can be renegotiated. You can transfer players. Regulations can be relaxed to meet our obligations. Does that mean you can do all this and still be competitive? No, the odds are that doing so can make the pitch worse. It may take some time to get back to the original location. But it’s life. That is business. You overuse and you pay the price.
In the decade before the pandemic, club revenue around Europe almost doubled from € 11.7 billion ($ 14.2 billion) to € 21.1 billion ($ 25.6 billion). It’s not Bitcoin, but it’s not shabby. And thanks to financial fair play, the whole system has been profitable in the last three years.
Oh yeah, Seifert has a few points. If you’re screaming for poverty now-and if you’re trying to change the entire system to rescue you and even create a permanent ruling class for the club-you expect the world’s smallest violin Should be. UEFA will probably say that they have no choice but to build a cave. Alternatives-clubs taking advantage of the threat, withdrawing from the Champions League and doing their own thing-would have diminished their ability to redistribute money through their competition and system.
But in reality, I’ve been exploring caves for the past 20 years. I’m old. And that’s not good for games.
– Soccer Sports
UEFA’s misleading Champions League changes once again benefit only big clubs
https://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-marcottis-musings/story/4322486/uefas-confusing-champions-league-changes-will-once-again-benefit-only-big-clubs UEFA’s misleading Champions League changes once again benefit only big clubs