Three of top five leagues are owned by one team

Howe Elbows 9

Registered User
Sep 16, 2007
3,833
378
Sweden
It’s becoming like this in most European leagues, it’s even worse in the smaller ones. Only Euro leagues off the top of my head with a legit variety of champions are the likes of Sweden (six different winners since 2010) and Turkey has had five but four of them are Istanbul clubs

SEPH (and others) have mentioned rich/top clubs being quite dominant. Although there have been six different winners since 2010, five of those teams have won one Allsvenskan title, and Malmö FF have won the other five titles.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
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.
If I were a fan of Aberdeen I would expect them not to try and operate like Chelsea, because that is a ridiculous comparison. Aren't even in the same league with the same revenue opportunities as the EPL's tv and prize money is massive. EPL teams especially have little excuse for constantly failing. Look at Newcastle and West Ham for example, both of them are top 20 clubs in the world in revenue and more valuable with a higher spending power than many continental clubs that make the CL every year. FFP doesn't keep them from competing for continental football every year, the fact that they are terrible run does.

It's harder in France for example because the league is structured to benefit the top team, it's not that FFP. The EPL for comparison distributes a lot more money to every club through tv and prize money than Ligue 1 does, so if you're Lyon your only options for revenue are through gate receipts, sponsorships, player development and sales, and performance on the field that gets you into continental football. Serie A is even worse, the league distributes f*** all to their clubs. Germany is like the EPL in that league performance gets you quite a bit of revenue, but their tv deal isn't as lucrative, still there is less excuse for a German club to not be able to be competitive if they are well run (Dortmund for example is regularly competitive).

You blame all the woes of clubs on FFP, when that is clearly not the case and never has been. FFP has faults, but as I said it's a fantasy to suggest that things were even before that because they weren't.
 

Pouchkine

Registered User
May 20, 2015
2,731
294
It’s becoming like this in most European leagues, it’s even worse in the smaller ones. Only Euro leagues off the top of my head with a legit variety of champions are the likes of Sweden (six different winners since 2010) and Turkey has had five but four of them are Istanbul clubs

Most EE leagues you can name the champions before season starts

With FFP it will be more difficult in the bigger leagues, look what happened to Malaga, though their owner put on massive debts
Russia has had 5 Champions in the last 12 seasons and lots of different teams fighting for the European Spots.
 
Last edited:

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
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.
No, a rich guy can't just buy any team. The league completely controls which owners they let in, and they do so based on how they think that owner will benefit them and maintain the status quo.

Even with all of the strict measures in place, most of these North American leagues have still been dominated by a small number of teams over long periods of time, it just changes sometimes which teams those are. Not enough time has gone by with FFP to even judge on a decades scale like is being done for those leagues as a comparison.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
In all these discussions I see the fundamental difference being on how people view the purpose of FFP. Is it meant to promote parity or was it just meant to help prevent some clubs from facing financial ruin. The problem I have, is that it does neither. You can't legislate organizations to make good business decisions to not face financial ruin, and FFP did not to promote parity.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
No, a rich guy can't just buy any team. The league completely controls which owners they let in, and they do so based on how they think that owner will benefit them and maintain the status quo.

Even with all of the strict measures in place, most of these North American leagues have still been dominated by a small number of teams over long periods of time, it just changes sometimes which teams those are. Not enough time has gone by with FFP to even judge on a decades scale like is being done for those leagues as a comparison.
Sure, but it would be an extreme example for a league to not allow a massive money takeover of a club. If a Russian billionaire wants to buy a club, they will most likely be approved. Sterling was kicked out of the NBA.

Not really. NHL has had 9 different winners just since 05/06. MLB has had 9 since 2006. NFL has had 11 since 2006. Not an NBA fan, and I know their winners are more centralized. In a short time period, there is plenty of variation. If you go back a little further, you get more unique winners. In NHL, that's when you have Tampa, Colorado, Dallas, New Jersey added to the mix.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
In all these discussions I see the fundamental difference being on how people view the purpose of FFP. Is it meant to promote parity or was it just meant to help prevent some clubs from facing financial ruin. The problem I have, is that it does neither. You can't legislate organizations to make good business decisions to not face financial ruin, and FFP did not to promote parity.
I'm pretty sure it was implemented to prevent, or at least limit, financial ruin from rich owners doing exactly what Evilo was advocating for, because in the past when rich people did that and then bailed if it didn't work the club went under and folded because of it. For example the issues identified in England were less with clubs in the EPL, and more with clubs in the Championship and below who were taking on massive debt trying to get promoted, and numerous clubs went into administration when they failed to do so. There was also a lot of concern that clubs were taking on huge debt from their owners (Manchester United, Chelsea, etc.) and clubs were taking on huge debt to try and compete with clubs that were owned by a mega rich person who burned cash every year to ridiculous amounts.

FFP was never about parity because there was little parity before it and they weren't aiming to have more of it, it was to minimize financial risk in the sport that so many clubs were engaging in to a dangerous level.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
I'm pretty sure it was implemented to prevent, or at least limit, financial ruin from rich owners doing exactly what Evilo was advocating for, because in the past when rich people did that and then bailed if it didn't work the club went under and folded because of it. For example the issues identified in England were less with clubs in the EPL, and more with clubs in the Championship and below who were taking on massive debt trying to get promoted, and numerous clubs went into administration when they failed to do so. There was also a lot of concern that clubs were taking on huge debt from their owners (Manchester United, Chelsea, etc.) and clubs were taking on huge debt to try and compete with clubs that were owned by a mega rich person who burned cash every year to ridiculous amounts.

FFP was never about parity because there was little parity before it and they weren't aiming to have more of it, it was to minimize financial risk in the sport that so many clubs were engaging in to a dangerous level.
To that point, teams have gone through financial ruin without the big money owners, and in those cases big money owners saved them. You can't legislate good business decisions.

Anytime there is that big of an income gap, you are going to have owners and clubs desperate to try and compete. That's the core issue. Those clubs have to operate like start-up companies to really compete with the big boys. That means not being profitable, that means massive losses.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
To that point, teams have gone through financial ruin without the big money owners, and in those cases big money owners saved them. You can't legislate good business decisions.
Of course clubs had gone through financial ruin without big money owners, that is one of the things FFP is supposed to minimize now. The 90s and 00s had dozens of English clubs enter administration because they were way overspending on hopes of future success, and if it didn't happen they got in serious trouble. Significantly fewer clubs have had this problem post-FFP compared to the decade before it.

Administration (British football) - Wikipedia
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
Of course clubs had gone through financial ruin without big money owners, that is one of the things FFP is supposed to minimize now. The 90s and 00s had dozens of English clubs enter administration because they were way overspending on hopes of future success, and if it didn't happen they got in serious trouble. Significantly fewer clubs have had this problem post-FFP compared to the decade before it.
Because it forces them into their financial lane, and making it harder to move into a higher lane. TV deals have elevated all of the EPL clubs revenues, but the revenue gap is still massive between the big clubs and the others, and players know that there are only a handful of clubs to go to if you want to win a trophy.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Because it forces them into their financial lane, and making it harder to move into a higher lane. TV deals have elevated all of the EPL clubs revenues, but the revenue gap is still massive between the big clubs and the others, and players know that there are only a handful of clubs to go to if you want to win a trophy.
Again though, were tons of smaller clubs winning trophies over the small group of top clubs before FFP was implemented? One of the biggest upsets in all of sports history I'd say happened post-FFP with Leicester winning the title in 15-16.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
Again though, were tons of smaller clubs winning trophies over the small group of top clubs before FFP was implemented? One of the biggest upsets in all of sports history I'd say happened post-FFP with Leicester winning the title in 15-16.
I'm not saying the issue didn't exist before, but FFP prevents what happened with Chelsea, City, and PSG from happening again. The way I see it, the sport either needs a lot of that to increase the amount of clubs at the very top, or controls put in place to elevate low-revenue clubs to be able to spend more or to reduce spending of the big clubs. To balance the starting point for the clubs, so each has a real shot.

The whole point of Leicester is that it shouldn't be the biggest upset in sports history just because a particular club won the title when nothing that remarkable happened to them. It's not like they were in last place halfway through the season or that they lost some of their top players due to injury at the start of the season. The fact that they were one of the biggest upsets, is precisely the issue.

I'm not arguing FFP is the root of the problem. It was definitely marketed and advocated by some to help with this problem though, but that was never the actual case, and I know that's not your position.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
I'm not saying the issue didn't exist before, but FFP prevents what happened with Chelsea, City, and PSG from happening again. The way I see it, the sport either needs a lot of that to increase the amount of clubs at the very top, or controls put in place to elevate low-revenue clubs to be able to spend more or to reduce spending of the big clubs. To balance the starting point for the clubs, so each has a real shot.

The whole point of Leicester is that it shouldn't be the biggest upset in sports history just because a particular club won the title when nothing that remarkable happened to them. It's not like they were in last place halfway through the season or that they lost some of their top players due to injury at the start of the season.
Leicester barely survived relegation their first year up and were expected to be relegated the year they won the title, and their entire squad had been built for about £35m since they were a side that just earned promotion. That's why it was the biggest upset in history. They won because Steve Walsh got Leicester players that were way undervalued like Mahrez, Kante, Vardy, etc. so they managed to build a team around players who were far more talented than their cost implied. Kante for example was bought for £5.6m after he had one of the best defensive seasons in Europe for Caen, way under what he should have been valued at in hindsight based on his performance there., immediately stepped into Leicester and was a top 5 midfielder in the EPL.
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,759
14,664
Leicester barely survived relegation their first year up and were expected to be relegated the year they won the title, and their entire squad had been built for about £35m since they were a side that just earned promotion. That's why it was the biggest upset in history. They won because Steve Walsh got Leicester players that were way undervalued like Mahrez, Kante, Vardy, etc. so they managed to build a team around players who were far more talented than their cost implied. Kante for example was bought for £5.6m after he had one of the best defensive seasons in Europe for Caen, way under what he should have been valued at in hindsight based on his performance there., immediately stepped into Leicester and was a top 5 midfielder in the EPL.
And if it was just that, it would've been like Vegas going as far as they did as an Expansion club. Those would've been great feats in their own right. What makes Leicester such an all-time upset, aside from actually winning it in the end, was that the league has been dominated by the top 4/6 for so many years. While Vegas did it in their 1st year, the Panthers still got to the Finals in just their 3rd, and the rules for Vegas were made easier for them to compete earlier.

The issue is that because of the disparity between the big clubs and the small clubs, the fact that a small club is able to win or get close, it becomes a historic accomplishment, when it really shouldn't any bigger of an accomplishment than a club just winning the title in that year.

The big clubs can just spend their way out of issues, that's a big part of the issue. If Chelsea made a mistake like Kepa in a NA league, they'd pretty much be screwed during that period, unless it was the NFL and we'd just cut him. Big clubs are like big banks, lack of moral hazard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassano

Bon Esprit

Registered User
Jan 24, 2004
4,856
438
For the EPL, United is in a class of their own for revenue. Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, and Manchester City are all within a reasonable range of each other. Really, 9 of the top 20 football clubs in the world are in the EPL though. 3 are from Spain (Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Atletico well behind them), 1 from France (PSG) with no other French club close, 3 from Germany with Bayern way above Dortmund and Schalke (who are floundering hard and likely to drop more), and 4 from Italy (Juventus, Inter, Roma, and Milan).
Schalke 04 has nothing in common with Bayern/BVB except all are located in Germany and play in Bundesliga. Last I heard was that they are at least 200m Euros in depth.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Schalke 04 has nothing in common with Bayern/BVB except all are located in Germany and play in Bundesliga. Last I heard was that they are at least 200m Euros in depth.
Schalke had the 3rd highest revenue in Germany last year, less than Dortmund and way less than Bayern, but still 3rd most.
 

Lambo

Registered User
Jan 10, 2019
1,578
531
Schalke had the 3rd highest revenue in Germany last year, less than Dortmund and way less than Bayern, but still 3rd most.
Revenue isn t a measure. Looking to this Schalke-Squad. This team has a potential like Werder, Augsburg or Mainz. And future isn t looking good for S04(Debt).
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Revenue isn t a measure. Looking to this Schalke-Squad. This team has a potential like Werder, Augsburg or Mainz. And future isn t looking good for S04(Debt).
My post was specifically talking about revenue and potential spending power. You are talking about them being poorly run, because of course they have been.
 

Lambo

Registered User
Jan 10, 2019
1,578
531
Yes money ist the mainreason for this dominance. The gap between the finacial powerhauses and the rest ist going bigger and bigger. The luxury clubs bying not only Top-Players but rather in Management, Coaching-Staff, medical etc..
My proposal ist to found a Euro-League for this Clubs. It ist better far all and the Fans.
 

Lambo

Registered User
Jan 10, 2019
1,578
531
My post was specifically talking about revenue and potential spending power. You are talking about them being poorly run, because of course they have been.
Yes but Schalkes bying power is ending now. S04 is going down. Maybe course 2nd Bundesliga!
 

Bon Esprit

Registered User
Jan 24, 2004
4,856
438
Schalke had the 3rd highest revenue in Germany last year, less than Dortmund and way less than Bayern, but still 3rd most.
Schalke NEEDS to get rid of players to stay afloat. Their CFO was on German Sport1 weeks ago and he admitted they are in deep financial trouble. Just like Werder Bremen. The difference between the two clubs is that Werder has alomost no depts until now.

German link (adblocker needs to be disabeled)
Bundesliga - Geld: So viel Eigenkapital haben die Bundesligisten
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lambo

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,956
8,524
France
If I were a fan of Aberdeen I would expect them not to try and operate like Chelsea, because that is a ridiculous comparison. Aren't even in the same league with the same revenue opportunities as the EPL's tv and prize money is massive. EPL teams especially have little excuse for constantly failing. Look at Newcastle and West Ham for example, both of them are top 20 clubs in the world in revenue and more valuable with a higher spending power than many continental clubs that make the CL every year. FFP doesn't keep them from competing for continental football every year, the fact that they are terrible run does.

It's harder in France for example because the league is structured to benefit the top team, it's not that FFP. The EPL for comparison distributes a lot more money to every club through tv and prize money than Ligue 1 does, so if you're Lyon your only options for revenue are through gate receipts, sponsorships, player development and sales, and performance on the field that gets you into continental football. Serie A is even worse, the league distributes f*** all to their clubs. Germany is like the EPL in that league performance gets you quite a bit of revenue, but their tv deal isn't as lucrative, still there is less excuse for a German club to not be able to be competitive if they are well run (Dortmund for example is regularly competitive).

You blame all the woes of clubs on FFP, when that is clearly not the case and never has been. FFP has faults, but as I said it's a fantasy to suggest that things were even before that because they weren't.
Actually if you could READ what I wrote, I also blamed (immensely) the CL format. But that doesn't fit your agenda so you ignore it.
Abderdeen is playing football.
The arrogance of your thoughts about the Chelsea/Aberdeen comparison is quite telling.
You already said in a previous thread that you didn't see as unfair the fact EPL teams got huge money on their TV deal. THAT also tells a lot.

As for your L1 analysis it's furiously uninformed.
L1 is one of the leagues where the profit is more distributed (and the big clubs arent happy with it). Problem is our TV deal is nothing compared to the EPL's. French money also shares a lot with amateur football.
In France, half of the TV deal goes equally to every L1 team.
1/4 is based on final ranking. 1/4 is based on 1st choice of the weekend match (usually OM because CL teams don't play most sundays).
Here is the 2019 repartition :
Estimations des futurs droits de la télé pour chaque club de L1
As often, you tried to use an argument you have zero knowledge of. Saying it benefits one team is just plain ridicuous.

And finally, you can say anything you want, the trend has been extremely clear in the last 7-8 years. Nearly no league is competitive. Even in the lower ranked teams, where the team qualifying for the CL is way too rich compared to the rest of the field.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->