Three of top five leagues are owned by one team

[Blender]

I was arguing the FFP was there to maintain the same teams at the top. Which this graphic totally shows.
If it was for me, I'd go for a semi-close league with full salary cap and all.
But if not, then a guy should be able to buy any team he wants and invest anything he wants. Be in in Croatia, England or San Marino. To forbid him to do so is absolutely disgusting and a clear breach of european rules.
FFP is doing just that : forbidding teams to challenge rapidly. What the big clubs want in fact.

Removing FFP will have absolutely no impact towards league parity, all it encourages is some rich person to buy a team and spend like crazy which just further lopsides the league. Worst of all, if that owner ever bails on the club the club will likely go under because their revenue isn't anywhere close to their expenses because of no FFP. FFP is meant to protect clubs from that kind of exploitation and financial ruin as much as anything.

FFP isn't preventing teams from challenging. Rapidly? Sure, you have to take your time and build it over years, but it doesn't prevent anything in a top league. Especially England, where revenues are so high to begin with if an owner really wanted to do so they could spend a lot of money on a lower stature club.

 

[Albatros]

Bayern benefits from that uncontrolled capitalism big time.
Uncontrolled not so much because they were in the driver seat when it came to the new CL format and FFP.

The club does not have any major external sources of financing, the operations are financed by the performance on the pitch.

 

[Savant]

Most owners are willing to lose more money than the Glazers tbf

The Glazers are very good owners. Everyone complains about them but United has won titles under them and they’ve never said no to a signing no matter where they were in the table and how expensive that player was. Most of the Premier League teams (Certainly at the top of the league) never had a Hicks & Gillette. That’s bad ownership

 

[N o o d l e s]

That's really more of a thing in NBA, since rosters are small and it's just a soft cap, so teams and players have a lot more flexibility to build those super teams on the fly. In the others sports, you'll have players that want to team up, but it's not on a grand scale and it doesn't really work out all the time. Suter and Parise going to Minnesota for example.

Right but it would be like all of the all stars in Canada going to the Leafs

 

[Evilo]

Removing FFP will have absolutely no impact towards league parity,

Really?
Since the point is that it's always the same teams winning, FFP prevents others teams from winning.
I thought that was obvious.

If Southampton is bought tomorrow, I bet you can wait a whole lot of years before they win the EPL.

 

[Evilo]

The club does not have any major external sources of financing, the operations are financed by the performance on the pitch.

And yet Bayern run their UEFA plan like a cartel. You're a smart guy, your analogy fits perfectly. Well done !
The way they made sure competition couldn't reach their status, the way they made sure they would get paid, regardless of their results (CL and CL qualifications).

 

[Blender]

Really?
Since the point is that it's always the same teams winning, FFP prevents others teams from winning.
I thought that was obvious.

If Southampton is bought tomorrow, I bet you can wait a whole lot of years before they win the EPL.

Leagues were dominated by a small group of teams before FFP as well. FFP came into place in 11-12 and in the 10 years before that only 3 teams won the EPL (Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal), 3 teams won La Liga (Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia), 5 teams won the Bundesliga (Bayern, Dortmund, Wolfsburg, Stuttgart, Bremen), 4 teams won Serie A (Juventus, Inter, Milan, Roma), and 3 teams won Ligue 1 (Lille, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Lyon). These leagues have always been dominated by small groups of clubs, it's a fantasy that it was ever common that "any team" could just up and win the league one year.

There is no scenario where someone could buy Southampton and win the league the next season. They wouldn't be able to build a title winning team that quickly regardless of money available, it wouldn't happen just from a practical standpoint.

 

[Albatros]

And yet Bayern run their UEFA plan like a cartel. You're a smart guy, your analogy fits perfectly. Well done !
The way they made sure competition couldn't reach their status, the way they made sure they would get paid, regardless of their results (CL and CL qualifications).

Any club in Germany can be operated the same way FC Bayern is, and many are. If there are organizations playing by their own rules then those would be Wolfsburg and Leverkusen (corporate finances) as well as RB Leipzig and Hoffenheim (investor covers losses).

 

[bleedblue1223]

Leagues were dominated by a small group of teams before FFP as well. FFP came into place in 11-12 and in the 10 years before that only 3 teams won the EPL (Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal), 3 teams won La Liga (Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia), 5 teams won the Bundesliga (Bayern, Dortmund, Wolfsburg, Stuttgart, Bremen), 4 teams won Serie A (Juventus, Inter, Milan, Roma), and 3 teams won Ligue 1 (Lille, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Lyon). These leagues have always been dominated by small groups of clubs, it's a fantasy that it was ever common that "any team" could just up and win the league one year.

There is no scenario where someone could buy Southampton and win the league the next season. They wouldn't be able to build a title winning team that quickly regardless of money available, it wouldn't happen just from a practical standpoint.

City would bought in August of '08 and won the title in 11/12, that's the realistic time to take to win a title in a competitive league after a big money takeover in the pre-FFP days. That time would be significantly longer IMO. A league where a big money takeover just puts you on par with some of the other big clubs as opposed to PSG where they became the only top dog spender in France. With FFP, this really isn't that possible anymore, you have to be like Leicester and make some incredible scouting decisions and get really lucky.

The only way to get true parity is to artificially boost the revenues of low-revenue clubs through revenue-sharing, and put in a given range to ensure those clubs spend that money on players and wages, and to restrict how much the big clubs can spend on players and wages. That would already be difficult enough to get done in 1 league, but with CL, you would need all the leagues to agree to it, so it would never happen. Leagues will want their team to with the CL title, and will want their clubs to have every advantage possible.

 

[Evilo]

Leagues were dominated by a small group of teams before FFP as well. FFP came into place in 11-12 and in the 10 years before that only 3 teams won the EPL (Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal), 3 teams won La Liga (Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia), 5 teams won the Bundesliga (Bayern, Dortmund, Wolfsburg, Stuttgart, Bremen), 4 teams won Serie A (Juventus, Inter, Milan, Roma), and 3 teams won Ligue 1 (Lille, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Lyon). These leagues have always been dominated by small groups of clubs, it's a fantasy that it was ever common that "any team" could just up and win the league one year.

There is no scenario where someone could buy Southampton and win the league the next season. They wouldn't be able to build a title winning team that quickly regardless of money available, it wouldn't happen just from a practical standpoint.

You already told that was not the case.
You have a total of 3, 3, 5, 4 and 4 (4 L1 teams, not 3) rather than basically 3, 2, 1, 1, 1 in the last 8 years or so (miracle like Leicester and Monaco aside).

 

[Evilo]

Any club in Germany can be operated the same way FC Bayern is, and many are. If there are organizations playing by their own rules then those would be Wolfsburg and Leverkusen (corporate finances) as well as RB Leipzig and Hoffenheim (investor covers losses).

You clearly don't understand how it all worked in the UEFA offices.
The small group of super teams, Bayern and Juve among the meanest are the driving force behind the FFP and the CL format that allows them to suck and still make the CL, to suck in the CL and still get 6 games worth of revenue and most likely a pass to the next round, etc, etc...

THIS is mafia. This indeed a cartel.

 

[Albatros]

I don't know what matches you've been watching to see them suck, but during the Champions League era FC Bayern has a 139-53-56 record.

An archetypical club that is always there while achieving shit would be Olympiakos. Of top 5 leagues Lyon, Valencia, Leverkusen, Roma. Manchester City isn't far off either by now.

 

[Evilo]

Yeha, the CL era. Where you can get wrecked by Bordeaux and still go through because ROUND ROBIN.
Where you can finish 2nd in your league and still play the C1.

Understand now?

 

[S E P H]

Due to that free market that Evilo is talking about, I suggest that there are top (rich) clubs like "Bayern" in every countries top division. There are just different tiers when you compare a team like Dinamo Zagreb or Red Stars to the likes of PSG or Bayern. I do think it's a bit unfair in Europe because even though they allow capitalism, they also allow foreign investors like Qatar oil or Singapore hedge funders to buy clubs and unbalance the countries league.

 

[Blender]

You already told that was not the case.
You have a total of 3, 3, 5, 4 and 4 (4 L1 teams, not 3) rather than basically 3, 2, 1, 1, 1 in the last 8 years or so (miracle like Leicester and Monaco aside).

Yes and you're wrong as those leagues were still being dominated by a small group, it's just gotten smaller in France, Italy, and Germany. Germany has ownership rules in place to make the investment issue we are discussing irrelevant anyways, it's not FFP that is ensuring Bayern's success, it's the increase in revenue worldwide for top clubs and that they were well positioned to take advantage of that. FFP or no FFP, I don't think it would change the Bundesliga's current situation. There is some argument for Italy and France because 2 mega clubs are dominating it, but they both got there with FFP in place and there are other clubs in those leagues capable of losing a lot of money while complying with FFP if they had owners willing to do so, since FFP does not prohibit losses, only restricts them in proportion to your revenue. EPL and La Liga haven't changed at all from FFP.

You're really splitting hairs over 18 league winners pre-FFP and 14 league winners post-FFP, and no you don't get to put aside clubs to fit your argument.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Just imagine if there was an entry draft system...

It's really not about the amount of clubs winning in a specific period or how many times a particular club wins, every club should strive to be like the Patriots in the NFL, consistently win in a league full of parity.

It's really more about the turnover and change in champions from period to period. And that's what is missing. It should be like it is in NA sports IMO, a team will go through a dominant period, but then they will inevitably fall back to the pack because in a league of parity, you will not be able to sustain that success forever.

That's one of the reasons why the smaller clubs will never be global clubs.

 

[Aladyyn]

The Glazers are very good owners. Everyone complains about them but United has won titles under them and they’ve never said no to a signing no matter where they were in the table and how expensive that player was. Most of the Premier League teams (Certainly at the top of the league) never had a Hicks & Gillette. That’s bad ownership

They are better than blood money owners, but I certainly wouldn't call them good. They're basically leeches.

 

[Blender]

Just imagine if there was an entry draft system...

I prefer the European soccer model myself. The North American sports leagues are owned by the ownership of the teams and are entirely structured to ensure continuity of their league and prevent outside interference or competition. When Evilo says "a guy should be able to buy any team he wants and invest anything he wants", the North American leagues are certainly not a model for that, they are the complete opposite and highly regulated.

 

[Savant]

They are better than blood money owners, but I certainly wouldn't call them good. They're basically leeches.

And that hasn’t stopped them from putting money into the team. Liverpool was less than 24 hours from Administration in 2010.

 

[Evilo]

Yes and you're wrong as those leagues were still being dominated by a small group, it's just gotten smaller in France, Italy, and Germany. Germany has ownership rules in place to make the investment issue we are discussing irrelevant anyways,

So 3 out of 5 leagues have less winners since FFP. Hmmm you're trying to hurt your own argument here.
As or Germany : CL as I said but you chose to ignore.

it's not FFP that is ensuring Bayern's success, it's the increase in revenue worldwide for top clubs and that they were well positioned to take advantage of that. FFP or no FFP, I don't think it would change the Bundesliga's current situation.

CL format, blah, blah, blah.

There is some argument for Italy and France because 2 mega clubs are dominating it, but they both got there with FFP in place and there are other clubs in those leagues capable of losing a lot of money while complying with FFP if they had owners willing to do so, since FFP does not prohibit losses, only restricts them in proportion to your revenue. EPL and La Liga haven't changed at all from FFP.

You're really splitting hairs over 18 league winners pre-FFP and 14 league winners post-FFP, and no you don't get to put aside clubs to fit your argument.

Yes because Leicester was never a player and never will be again. To count them in as a proof is dishonest. Same with Monaco's incredible season. That just doesn't happen.
Basically, even when Lyon was dominating the french league, Lille, Bordeaux, Nantes, OM could win. The CL format made sure Lyon would be the biggest financial power.
The FFP was applied too late for Lyon since PSG was already bought and invested a lot.
In Italy, Juve clearly benefited from the FFP (see Milan and other teams with heavy investments) and the CL format as always.

You choose to ignore the numbers all you want, but there are there to prove it. The leagues have been dominated by the 1 or 2 teams with financial power in every league except EPL where several teams have financial power.
That financial power comes from the CL format and the FFP ensures new teams can't join them before years.

 

[Evilo]

I prefer the European soccer model myself. The North American sports leagues are owned by the ownership of the teams and are entirely structured to ensure continuity of their league and prevent outside interference or competition. When Evilo says "a guy should be able to buy any team he wants and invest anything he wants", the North American leagues are certainly not a model for that, they are the complete opposite and highly regulated.

Yes, well the NA system means a fan of Sparta Praha can at some point WIN.
Of course you're a Chelsea fan, so you don't care and love this system.
If you were a fan of Aberdeen, you'd sing a different tune.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I prefer the European soccer model myself. The North American sports leagues are owned by the ownership of the teams and are entirely structured to ensure continuity of their league and prevent outside interference or competition. When Evilo says "a guy should be able to buy any team he wants and invest anything he wants", the North American leagues are certainly not a model for that, they are the complete opposite and highly regulated.

A guy can still buy any of the teams in the league, and the leagues always look to expand when viable. Now, you're right it's not like Evilo saying they should be able to invest whatever they want, but the starting point for all the teams is already balanced, with MLB being the exception with pretty lax rules for minimum spending and maximum spending, but the vast majority are around the same and it's pretty competitive, in large part because of team control of the players during many of their most productive years. The Yankees and Dodgers can't just buy the top young players of the lower revenue clubs.

If NA sports, unless you are a Browns fan, there is a real chance for you team to win a Championship within the nearish future. Every league has a known set of contenders for the next 5 years based on current rosters, spending capabilities, and current prospects, but 5-10 years from now, we'll have no idea who the top contenders will be, 10-20 will be even more different. That's a good thing IMO.

 

[Evilo]

It's a great thing. You can be a fan of any team, including the Clippers who sucked for years. Now they're contenders, imagine that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

And it's definitely not comparing apples and apples because in the NA system, a promotion/relegation system would never be implemented, so a minor league team will pretty much always be a minor league team.

 

[The Abusement Park]

They are better than blood money owners, but I certainly wouldn't call them good. They're basically leeches.

It’s tough because while they bought the club on a loan to profit off it they’ve still turned this club into a money printer basically. Woodward is a very flawed CEO but his ability to market the club and bring money in is best in the world, hence the why they keep him around.