Super League - time to reconsider

Myesyats wrote:

Vibe wrote:Only change I wanted to see from CL was it to become a world competition instead of just a European one,

Huh for what? And who would watch Inter vs Nagasaki Dickriders or Guadalajara Muchachos?

@Arq Tradition is overrated, ESL would replace CL and it would have the same merit because the same clubs would play in it and the best team in the world would win. The only thing that'd change is labels but merit is merit. + more money to the clubs rather than greedy UEFA

Football evolves and viewers evolve in terms of what they expect and so the competitions must follow.

CL groups are boring af, do you really watch all the games except your team or the group of death? The knockout phase will remain unchanged but something has to be done about those boring groups IMHO

I would certainly rather watch River Plate v Inter in Argentina or Flamengo in Brazil rather than Viktoria Plzen.

Problem with a world format prolly include the traveling for the clubs involved wont be realistic in already congested fixtures list especially for the top clubs? U would also prolly have to include some Asia, Saudi, US, n whatever lower level clubs to legit call it world, actually worsening the level of games n balance of the games anyway?

CL will only get worst though if not already...

The league rankings exist for this precisely, you know.

It will never happen anyway, it's just a dream of mine.

Vibe wrote:I would certainly rather watch River Plate v Inter in Argentina or Flamengo in Brazil rather than Viktoria Plzen.

Dont think it's possible or commercially viable due to logistics, time zones etc

The level of these teams is not much higher Plzen either I dont think, SA does sound cool but it stops being fun when you'd have to travel mid-week to Asia or Africa or something

It isn't about prestige it's about countless decades of history erased as UCL and its pedigree is half of what drives its value. Are we forgetting about the players? Their dreams stem on the champions league and I seldom see top stars giving their best in some newly minted competition.

See thats where I disagree that CL groups are boring as Ive reduced myself to never watching friendlies including some International friendlies but group stages if anything add a good build up.

I am not a fan of UEFA by any means but always supported the CL as the best competition in the sport and that isn't to change unless its super high quality drops.

I still say that the concepts of the super league will be adopted by UEFA for CL eventually, after Ceferin departs and thus Perez essentially accomplishes his mission!

Damas y caballeros, así será el nuevo formato de las competiciones europeas a partir de la próxima temporada.pic.twitter.com/sTeAFoi8dU

— VarskySports (@VarskySports) March 4, 2024

Don't love it but don't hate it. 3/4 of the teams making it to the next round feels like the league part doesn't matter. I can envision some drama with teams getting unlucky in who they play home vs away, not sure how they will balance that.

Arquitecto wrote:It isn't about prestige it's about countless decades of history erased as UCL and its pedigree is half of what drives its value. Are we forgetting about the players? Their dreams stem on the champions league and I seldom see top stars giving their best in some newly minted competition.

See thats where I disagree that CL groups are boring as Ive reduced myself to never watching friendlies including some International friendlies but group stages if anything add a good build up.

I am not a fan of UEFA by any means but always supported the CL as the best competition in the sport and that isn't to change unless its super high quality drops.

Yeah but what determines CL's quality? The competition itself or the teams that are in it? Are the contents more important or the packaging?

Nothing is forever, the CL also evolved from the European Cup, and clubs laud wins in both comps at the same rate

I get the impression, whether right or not, that a lot of the objections on this forum are because of detest for Flo or perhaps RMad in general. If it had been someone else or perhaps if first proposal had been much better thought thru and presented, then I think a lot of the objections would be gone.

Similarly if Cerifin wasn’t in charge of UEFA, perhaps maybe UEFA would be more receptive.

I’m for it mainly because I believe most want to see more games of best against best. The failure of super league has been in not making it a truly open competition. I do think that is what we are now talking about.

This idea that it will be a different / new competition than CL are ignoring the past. The CL evolved from what was European Cup and all memories / trophies of European Cup are included in CL records / history. Similarly the EL evolved from UEFA cup.

The other factor in Perez’ mission is he fundamentally believes, and maybe rightfully should, is he can better market Super League than Cerafin and similarly with La liga than Tebas. Ie better marketing means more income and thus bigger cut for participating teams.

But given the past couple years experience, I more inclined to say the concept of best against best eventually gets adopted by UEFA, post Ceferin, rather than a separate competition.

Myesyats wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:It isn't about prestige it's about countless decades of history erased as UCL and its pedigree is half of what drives its value. Are we forgetting about the players? Their dreams stem on the champions league and I seldom see top stars giving their best in some newly minted competition.

See thats where I disagree that CL groups are boring as Ive reduced myself to never watching friendlies including some International friendlies but group stages if anything add a good build up.

I am not a fan of UEFA by any means but always supported the CL as the best competition in the sport and that isn't to change unless its super high quality drops.

Yeah but what determines CL's quality? The competition itself or the teams that are in it? Are the contents more important or the packaging?

Nothing is forever, the CL also evolved from the European Cup, and clubs laud wins in both comps at the same rate

What determines it is the quality of football. Nothing in world football is even close to its quality. If anyone says the WC I will ignore that nonsense opinion.

But I admit my ignorance here for Im assuming the change to Super League means the history of the European Cup/UCL is in the past rather than it being merged akin to the transition in the EC to the UCL.

If it is similar to the latter than Im all in. The presentation/anthem and prestige of the UCL is iconic but it isn't critical.

Myesyats exposing Arq's usual inflammatory statments

Arq wrote:What determines it is the quality of football. Nothing in world football is even close to its quality. If anyone says the WC I will ignore that nonsense opinion.

that's just a perception of mind, nothing can actually measure or prove this

in fact, many players have said they've played with more heart for their country in the WC... and while that doesn't necessarily automatically mean "better quality of football", it still means a lot of players value it more

There is no exposure if I am admitting my ignorance to a mere competition technicality.

Of course heart doesn't mean anything in football as otherwise Mateiu flamini would be a footballing legend.

UCL is the best bc believe it or not quality of football CAN be quantified but more so European clubs are the best and by far and no region in the world outside of it will compare to them.

Quality of football is determined bc the competition pits the best against each other and the sample size of the best European teams coming out to win it, signifies who's the best, with anomalies obviously being present: (Di Matteo's Chelsea, Mourinho's Inter).

So taking the contrarian approach to this is just nonsensical because teams succeed because of the managers behind them the players etc.

I dont even know why this needs to be responded to.

Arquitecto wrote:

Myesyats wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:It isn't about prestige it's about countless decades of history erased as UCL and its pedigree is half of what drives its value. Are we forgetting about the players? Their dreams stem on the champions league and I seldom see top stars giving their best in some newly minted competition.

See thats where I disagree that CL groups are boring as Ive reduced myself to never watching friendlies including some International friendlies but group stages if anything add a good build up.

I am not a fan of UEFA by any means but always supported the CL as the best competition in the sport and that isn't to change unless its super high quality drops.

Yeah but what determines CL's quality? The competition itself or the teams that are in it? Are the contents more important or the packaging?

Nothing is forever, the CL also evolved from the European Cup, and clubs laud wins in both comps at the same rate

What determines it is the quality of football. Nothing in world football is even close to its quality. If anyone says the WC I will ignore that nonsense opinion.

But I admit my ignorance here for Im assuming the change to Super League means the history of the European Cup/UCL is in the past rather than it being merged akin to the transition in the EC to the UCL.

If it is similar to the latter than Im all in. The presentation/anthem and prestige of the UCL is iconic but it isn't critical.

To be honest CL history probably can not be erased. It is already iconic, but what I'm saying is nothing can be set in stone forever. Rules change constantly, the away goal rule recently. VAR. Something new always pops up and brings uncertainty for sure, but these things ultimately have to happen

Nothing will take away many years of CL history, but should something new replace it might be even better. Who knows. Also more revenue for clubs, perfect.

ultimately it is the clubs that make a competition iconic not the other way around, imo.

I want to respond to Vibe's proposed fantasy expanding CL or Super league to a world competition.

There are two competing elements in the demand for changes. One is UEFA's response to clubs wanting changes and that is add more teams and thus more games. The other is the desire for more games of best against best.

With the first, it not only weakens the competition i.e. the added teams will be weaker than those already in the competition, it will just add more boring games in the pre Christmas calendar, which is hardly watched already, but it also add more games which is the biggest contributor to the injuries that are all too frequently happening.

The second is adding more exciting games to watch, again in the pre Christmas schedules and thus it enables better marketing and thus more revenue (hopefully for clubs).

Besides the travel issues in Vibe's fantasy, the quality of teams outside of Europe is no better than 2nd division futbol in Europe with the only exceptions being a few teams in Argentina and Brasil. But those teams are at best no better than mid table 1st division teams. And thus any world additions would fall under first element which is already flawed. I'm sure Vibe will comeback and argue the South Americans are better than what I've said, but the proof is in the existing so called world Club championship  in the Christmas / New Year period. The finals are always the European Champion beating the South American team. The only times that that didn't happen was when that competition was first conceived with play in Japan and was just the two teams. The European team took it as a rewards vacation from previous year's trophy, while the SA team took it as a chance to get recognition.