FIFA's new Club World Cup

[alka...@hotmail.com]

Has been smacked down by several top clubs saying that there's time for it in the current calendar. Can't argue with that, the idiot wanted to make it a 24 team competition.

Maybe they should scrap it altogether, the current format is such a joke anyway.

[Mehdi]

On 16/03/2019 00꞉57, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Has been smacked down by several top clubs saying that there's time for it in the current calendar. Can't argue with that, the idiot wanted to make it a 24 team competition.
>
> Maybe they should scrap it altogether, the current format is such a joke anyway.

Agreed. It was better as a one off match but, post Bosman, the balance
of power has shifted and European clubs get a week in good weather and
what's equivalent to playing a mid table team in a domestic cup. The
tournament is no longer relevant. They should retire it.

[Mark]

On Friday, March 15, 2019 at 4:57:49 PM UTC, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Has been smacked down by several top clubs saying that there's time for it in the current calendar. Can't argue with that, the idiot wanted to make it a 24 team competition.
>
> Maybe they should scrap it altogether, the current format is such a joke anyway.

What format would you suggest? I thought you were in favour of having more teams in the Club World Cup rather than having only 1 team from each continent, or have I misunderstood you?

[Mehdi]

On 17/03/2019 18꞉37, Mark wrote:

> What format would you suggest? I thought you were in favour of having more teams in the Club World Cup rather than having only 1 team from each continent, or have I misunderstood you?

I don't recall suggesting more teams. My issue was the timing of the
competition and the venue, which was always Tokyo. A two legged, home
and away final (between the UCL & Libertadores winners) would have been
better but it not workable due to the differences in the calendars.

[alka...@hotmail.com]

You're right, I did say that. But on further thoughts, it would just be too many games. The calendar is already horribly congested with three club competitions and international commitments and players are being run into the ground. This would just exacerbate that situation. And for what? Just a another ceremonial competition to crown a club world champion, when in actuality everyone knows that there's no comparison in quality between Europe and rest of the world. You'd end up with four European clubs in the semi-finals most of the time. Do you really want that?

[Mark]

You could say the same about the Champions League; that's become just another competition to crown a European Champion when everyone knows that there's no comparison in financial muscle between the rich 5 of Western Europe and the rest of Europe. You usually do end up with 4 teams from Italy/England/Germany/Spain (rarely even France) in the semi-finals. And no we don't want that.

What format do you suggest for the Club World Cup? I didn't think there was much wrong with the 8 team format they used in 2000 myself. Although I'm not too happy with a team qualifying just because they're from the host country. Howabout a 6 team tournament with 2 groups of 3 and the group winners playing each other in the final?

[Mehdi]

On 19/03/2019 18꞉07, Mark wrote:

> You could say the same about the Champions League; that's become just another competition to crown a European Champion when everyone knows that there's no comparison in financial muscle between the rich 5 of Western Europe and the
> rest of Europe. You usually do end up with 4 teams from Italy/England/Germany/Spain (rarely even France) in the semi-finals. And no we don't want that.

The biggest factor is Bosman. Teams like Red Star, Steaua, PSV etc, etc
could build squads and perfect tactics over years before losing their
best players because of foreign player limits. Once Bosman hit and once
satellite and pay TV became more mainstream, South American clubs were
losing players just as soon as they made a name for themselves. Without
the Bosman ruling I'm sure South American teams would be far, far more
competitive than they are currently. It would be one thing if the best
players were all in the top leagues but you have hundreds of South
Americans in secondary leagues as well.

Personally of course, I'm delighted with the development. I'd long
argued that the European Cup winners are the best team in the World,
irrespective of what happened in the CWC and domestic leagues.

[MH]

On 2019-03-19 5:58, Mehdi wrote:
> On 19/03/2019 18꞉07, Mark wrote:
>
>>   You could say the same about the Champions League; that's become
>> just another competition to crown a European Champion when everyone
>> knows that there's no comparison in financial muscle between the rich
>> 5 of Western Europe and the
>> rest of Europe. You usually do end up with 4 teams from
>> Italy/England/Germany/Spain (rarely even France) in the semi-finals.
>> And no we don't want that.
>
> The biggest factor is Bosman.

You can't blame Bosman for everything. In the strict sense, the Bosman
ruling and associated discussions were about two things
1) freedom of movement of out-of-contract players without compensation
to their former team
2) freedom of movement of EU nationals to exercise their profession (in
this case football), which made limits on foreigners in squads illegal,
as long as those foreigners were EU nationals.

There was not anything a priori in the above that would stop teams,
leagues or governments from putting restrictions on numbers of non EU
nationals on each team. Many leagues still did have restrictions for a
number of years after the Bosman ruling, and maybe some still do.
Individual countries also have rules with respect to granting visas/work
permits to non-EU footballers. I have also not kept up on that, but
there were requirements as to minimum number of national team games the
players had to have played to get a UK permit, and that number was
scalable according to the nations FIFA ranking (i.e. it was fewer games
for a Brazilian than a Canadian).

Teams like Red Star, Steaua, PSV etc, etc
> could build squads and perfect tactics over years before losing their
> best players because of foreign player limits. Once Bosman hit and once
> satellite and pay TV became more mainstream, South American clubs were
> losing players just as soon as they made a name for themselves.

This is true, but, except in cases of the many south Americans with
claims of a sort to Italian or Spanish citizenship, not a direct effect
of the Bosman ruling itself.

Without
> the Bosman ruling I'm sure South American teams would be far, far more
> competitive than they are currently. It would be one thing if the best
> players were all in the top leagues but you have hundreds of South
> Americans in secondary leagues as well.
>
> Personally of course, I'm delighted with the development. I'd long
> argued that the European Cup winners are the best team in the World,

This is kind of a hard argument to sustain in the face of evidence like
Aston Villa 1982, Porto 2004, Liverpool 2005, Chelsea 2012 and so on.

[Mehdi]

On 20/03/2019 00꞉44, MH wrote:

> You can't blame Bosman for everything.  In the strict sense, the Bosman
> ruling and associated discussions were about two things
> 1) freedom of movement of out-of-contract players without compensation
> to their former team
> 2) freedom of movement of EU nationals to exercise their profession (in
> this case football), which made limits on foreigners in squads illegal,
> as long as those foreigners were EU nationals.

> There was not anything a priori in the above that would stop teams,
> leagues or governments from putting restrictions on numbers of non EU
> nationals on each team.  Many leagues still did have restrictions for a
> number of years after the Bosman ruling, and maybe some still do.
> Individual countries also have rules with respect to granting visas/work
> permits to non-EU footballers.  I have also not kept up on that, but
> there were requirements as to minimum number of national team games the
> players had to have played to get a UK permit, and that number was
> scalable according to the nations FIFA ranking (i.e. it was fewer games
> for a Brazilian than a Canadian).

Serie A had strict limits, first one, then two then three. I believe
most leagues were bound by a 3 player limit.

> This is true, but, except in cases of the many south Americans with
> claims of a sort to Italian or Spanish citizenship, not a direct effect
> of the Bosman ruling itself.

Yes but you're missing an important point, pre Bosman, Italians and
Spanish players were foreigners outside of their own leagues. Post
Bosman they weren't, an Italian born player or a player with Italian
citizenship would still be classified as a foreigner and count against
any player limits if he played in France or Germany or England.

> This is kind of a hard argument to sustain in the face of evidence like
> Aston Villa 1982, Porto 2004, Liverpool 2005, Chelsea 2012 and so on.

Bah.

[MH]

On 2019-03-20 2:56, Mehdi wrote:
> On 20/03/2019 00꞉44, MH wrote:
>
>> You can't blame Bosman for everything.  In the strict sense, the
>> Bosman ruling and associated discussions were about two things
>> 1) freedom of movement of out-of-contract players without compensation
>> to their former team
>> 2) freedom of movement of EU nationals to exercise their profession
>> (in this case football), which made limits on foreigners in squads
>> illegal, as long as those foreigners were EU nationals.
>
>> There was not anything a priori in the above that would stop teams,
>> leagues or governments from putting restrictions on numbers of non EU
>> nationals on each team.  Many leagues still did have restrictions for
>> a number of years after the Bosman ruling, and maybe some still do.
>> Individual countries also have rules with respect to granting
>> visas/work permits to non-EU footballers.  I have also not kept up on
>> that, but there were requirements as to minimum number of national
>> team games the players had to have played to get a UK permit, and that
>> number was scalable according to the nations FIFA ranking (i.e. it was
>> fewer games for a Brazilian than a Canadian).
>
> Serie A had strict limits, first one, then two then three. I believe
> most leagues were bound by a 3 player limit.

Spain still has a three player limit for non-EU nationals. However, many
South Americans seem to get EU citizenship quite quickly.

>
>> This is true, but, except in cases of the many south Americans with
>> claims of a sort to Italian or Spanish citizenship, not a direct
>> effect of the Bosman ruling itself.
>
> Yes but you're missing an important point, pre Bosman, Italians and
> Spanish players were foreigners outside of their own leagues.

Yes, ideed, they were. But that does not, a priori, lead to a weakening
of the South american leagues (and hence making a CWC not much of a
competition) . And in fact the number of Italians playing outside of
Italy is not exactly huge. Spaniards and Portugese is a different story.

Post
> Bosman they weren't, an Italian born player or a player with Italian
> citizenship would still be classified as a foreigner and count against
> any player limits if he played in France or Germany or England.

I am not denying that. I said that above. But you can't blame Bosman
(and certainly not Bosman alone) for the mass exodus of Argentine,
Brazilian, Uruguayan and other players to Europe - especially given that
quite a lot of them are not even going to EU countries (Russia, Ukraine,
Turkey in particular). That is all about Economics, which are heavily in
Europe's favour.

Leagues in EU countries could impose quite strict limits on non-EU
players if they wanted to. Countries of the UK will presumably be able
to impose strict limits on all foreigners in their leagues after Brexit
(I am betting they won't, of course).

>
>> This is kind of a hard argument to sustain in the face of evidence like
>> Aston Villa 1982, Porto 2004, Liverpool 2005, Chelsea 2012 and so on.
>
> Bah.

It's a cup competition. It is always going to throw up odd results from
time to time. But that team that wins a cup (like the CL, Euros, or WC)
can't be said with any certainty to be the best team in the competition,
or in a continent. Nobody claims the team that wins the FA cup is the
best team in England and Wales, although some years they might be.

[alka...@hotmail.com]

Especially when there are "randomizers" like the away goals rule and penalties involved. That said, the two-legged UCL is still a better litmus test than a single game knockout competition like the World Cup.

But agreed that the best team doesn't win always win either competition.

[MH]

On 2019-03-20 9:31, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 10:57:15 AM UTC-4, MH wrote:
>> On 2019-03-20 2:56, Mehdi wrote:
>
>> Leagues in EU countries could impose quite strict limits on non-EU
>> players if they wanted to. Countries of the UK will presumably be able
>> to impose strict limits on all foreigners in their leagues after Brexit
>> (I am betting they won't, of course).
>>>
>>>> This is kind of a hard argument to sustain in the face of evidence like
>>>> Aston Villa 1982, Porto 2004, Liverpool 2005, Chelsea 2012 and so on.
>>>
>>> Bah.
>>
>> It's a cup competition. It is always going to throw up odd results from
>> time to time. But that team that wins a cup (like the CL, Euros, or WC)
>> can't be said with any certainty to be the best team in the competition,
>> or in a continent. Nobody claims the team that wins the FA cup is the
>> best team in England and Wales, although some years they might be.
>
> Especially when there are "randomizers" like the away goals rule and penalties involved.

And injuries, suspensions, refereeing errors, and the whole mess. Those
are things that are far more likely to even out over the course of a
season or two in a league format than in any type of cup competition.

[Mehdi]

On 20/03/2019 22꞉57, MH wrote:

> I am not denying that.  I said that above.   But you can't blame Bosman
> (and certainly not Bosman alone) for the mass exodus of Argentine,
> Brazilian, Uruguayan and other players to Europe - especially given that
> quite a lot of them are not even going to EU countries (Russia, Ukraine,
> Turkey in particular). That is all about Economics, which are heavily in
> Europe's favour.

Of course it's not just Bosman, I said Bosman is the biggest factor. I
mentioned satellite TV and pay TV as factors but you still need the
player limits to be lifted first.

Clubs are snaring talented players just as soon as they've broken into
their first teams. Look at Vinicius Jr, Rodrygo, Paqueta, Arthur. All
four were signed before they'd even made 50 league appearances. Neymar
had played double that number before Barcelona signed him.

> It's a cup competition.  It is always going to throw up odd results from
> time to time.  But that team that wins a cup (like the CL, Euros, or WC)
> can't be said with any certainty to be the best team in the competition,
> or in a continent.   Nobody claims the team that wins the FA cup is the
> best team in England and Wales, although some years they might be.

I get your point but the FA Cup is a terrible example. Teams don't take
the FA Cup anywhere near as seriously as they take the UCL.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2019-03-19, Mark <Pammie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 2:11:07 PM UTC, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> And for what? Just a another ceremonial competition to crown a club
>> world champion, when in actuality everyone knows that there's no
>> comparison in quality between Europe and rest of the world. You'd
>> end up with four European clubs in the semi-finals most of the
>> time. Do you really want that?
>
> You could say the same about the Champions League; that's become
> just another competition to crown a European Champion when everyone
> knows that there's no comparison in financial muscle between the
> rich 5 of Western Europe and the rest of Europe.

The diffence is that there's no other tournament where Barcelona,
City, Juve etc battle it out.

> You usually do end up with 4 teams from Italy/England/Germany/Spain
> (rarely even France) in the semi-finals. And no we don't want that.

It's only two years since Monaco was there. And until Liverpool last
year, it has been a while since an English team made it.

[Mehdi]

On 21/03/2019 01꞉39, MH wrote:

>  That said, the two-legged UCL is still a better litmus test than a
> single game knockout competition like the World Cup.

The World Cup is the end of a cycle, not only the 2 years of qualifying
but also the previous two years when coaches are trying to get a team
ready with an eye for the WC, even when competing at the Euros. Besides,
VAR is making things fairer.

[Mehdi]

On 22/03/2019 06꞉55, Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

> The diffence is that there's no other tournament where Barcelona,
> City, Juve etc battle it out.
>
>> You usually do end up with 4 teams from Italy/England/Germany/Spain
>> (rarely even France) in the semi-finals. And no we don't want that.
>
> It's only two years since Monaco was there. And until Liverpool last
> year, it has been a while since an English team made it.

Ironically Monaco have gotten further than PSG. Good coaching and
players that compliment and support each other are a great leveller,
nonetheless, It's hard to believe we'll see another Porto anytime soon.

[Mark]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:04:09 PM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> On 20/03/2019 22꞉57, MH wrote:
>
> > I am not denying that.  I said that above.   But you can't blame Bosman
> > (and certainly not Bosman alone) for the mass exodus of Argentine,
> > Brazilian, Uruguayan and other players to Europe - especially given that
> > quite a lot of them are not even going to EU countries (Russia, Ukraine,
> > Turkey in particular). That is all about Economics, which are heavily in
> > Europe's favour.
>
> Of course it's not just Bosman, I said Bosman is the biggest factor. I
> mentioned satellite TV and pay TV as factors but you still need the
> player limits to be lifted first.
>

How much is it the Bosman ruling, and how much is it the ridiculously unfair advantages that the rich 5 get? Ie 4 points per team for qualifying for the group stage even when they don't have to play any matches to get there while the Champions of other countries have to earn their places and often end up with nothing, and the fact that even the 4th placed teams in some leagues qualify (and start in later rounds), while only the champions of other countries qualify, and often don't even end up in the Europa League if they get knocked out early etc.

[Mark]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:55:14 PM UTC, Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

> On 2019-03-19, Mark wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 2:11:07 PM UTC, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> And for what? Just a another ceremonial competition to crown a club
> >> world champion, when in actuality everyone knows that there's no
> >> comparison in quality between Europe and rest of the world. You'd
> >> end up with four European clubs in the semi-finals most of the
> >> time. Do you really want that?
> >
> > You could say the same about the Champions League; that's become
> > just another competition to crown a European Champion when everyone
> > knows that there's no comparison in financial muscle between the
> > rich 5 of Western Europe and the rest of Europe.
>
> The diffence is that there's no other tournament where Barcelona,
> City, Juve etc battle it out.
>

Are you saying it's OK to have a tournament that's dominated by teams from only 5 different countries and to call it the championship of a continent or the world as long as there aren't 2 of them?

I want to see Barcelona and Juve battling it out with Ajax, Benfica, Crvena Zvezda, Celtic and Steaua Bucharest for the championship of Europe, and battling it out with Independiente, Sao Paulo, Penarol, Olimpia and Colo Colo for the World Championship. I don't want even 1 tournament where they're just battling it out with the also-rans from Germany, England and France (and then claiming it's the championship of an entire continent).

[Mehdi]

On 22/03/2019 19꞉11, Mark wrote:

> How much is it the Bosman ruling, and how much is it the ridiculously unfair advantages that the rich 5 get? Ie 4 points per team for qualifying for the group stage even when they don't have to play any matches to get there while the Champions of other countries have to earn their places and often end up with nothing, and the fact that even the 4th placed teams in some leagues qualify (and start in later rounds), while only the champions of other countries qualify, and often don't even end up in the Europa League if they get knocked out early etc.
>

Those aren't unfair advantages, the reason there is so much money is the
UCL is because of the billions paid by the top markets so of course they
want to protect their investment.

[Werner Pichler]

On Friday, 22 March 2019 12:11:32 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:04:09 PM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> > On 20/03/2019 22꞉57, MH wrote:
> >
> > > I am not denying that.  I said that above.   But you can't blame Bosman
> > > (and certainly not Bosman alone) for the mass exodus of Argentine,
> > > Brazilian, Uruguayan and other players to Europe - especially given that
> > > quite a lot of them are not even going to EU countries (Russia, Ukraine,
> > > Turkey in particular). That is all about Economics, which are heavily in
> > > Europe's favour.
> >
> > Of course it's not just Bosman, I said Bosman is the biggest factor. I
> > mentioned satellite TV and pay TV as factors but you still need the
> > player limits to be lifted first.
> >
> How much is it the Bosman ruling, and how much is it the ridiculously
> unfair advantages

But isn't it an unfair advantage that Salzburg, or Celtic, or Dudelange, get
the title, and therefore a shot at the Champions League, on a silver platter
while Wolverhampton will never get near it despite being just as strong a
team? If in 1816 the Vienna Congress hadn't decided that the former arch-
bishopric of Salzburg should become part of Austria rather than Bavaria, or
in 1839 the Treaty of London hadn't made parts of Luxembourg an independent
arch-duchy, or Scotland were stripped of their historic privilege of having
their own league despite not being independent, those three might never make
it!

Ciao,
Werner

[Mark]

What do you mean by the top markets? Surely you're not saying that because TV companies in Spain etc pay lots of money that justifies having more Spanish teams than Dutch teams whether the Spanish teams can earn their place in the tournament or not? I'm not sure what you mean.

[Mark]

I suppose you could say it is, in the same kind of way as the USA and China have an unfair advantage in terms of huge populations in the World Cup, compared to Uruguay and Scotland.

[Mehdi]

On 24/03/2019 17꞉53, Mark wrote:

> What do you mean by the top markets? Surely you're not saying that because TV companies in Spain etc pay lots of money that justifies having more Spanish teams than Dutch teams whether the Spanish teams can earn their place in the tournament or not? I'm not sure what you mean.

Yes! That's exactly how it works.
BT Sport (UK) pay 460 million a season.
Telefonica (Spain) pay 360 million a season.
Sky Italia are paying 290 million from next season.
Sky Germany & platform pay 200 million a season.
Canal+ (France) pay 115 million a season.

I'm not sure what Ziggo (Netherlands) are paying but it will be
considerably less than France, which in turn is 1/4 of what BT Sport pay.

The fees are a reflection on the commercial value to the broadcasters
and sponsors in each country so yes, if you're paying the bulk of the
collective rights fees, you 'get' 4 teams (through the coefficients).

[Werner Pichler]

> I suppose you could say it is, in the same kind of way as the USA and China
> have an unfair advantage in terms of huge populations in the World Cup,
> compared to Uruguay and Scotland.

Sure, but it's mitigated by the fact that it's still eleven against eleven on
the pitch.

But anyway, when did this discussion turn to 'fairness', and national teams,
when the original question was how to determine the best team in Europe? And
there should be little doubt that a competition including Salzburg, AEK, or
Midtjylland, but excluding Liverpool, Atlético (or Ajax! they're not the
reigning Dutch champions) would be less suited to this task than the current
set-up is.

For the record, I'm against the fourth-placed team of the third- and fourth-
ranked UEFA nations being guaranteed an automatic place in the group stages.
Teams like Sampdoria or Hoffenheim haven't proved they qualitatively belong in
the elite group at the expense of champions from countries ranked below 11th
just because they qualified through a more difficult league. But the second-
and third-placed teams usually have.


Ciao,
Werner

[Mehdi]

On 25/03/2019 17꞉07, Werner Pichler wrote:

> Sure, but it's mitigated by the fact that it's still eleven against eleven on
> the pitch.
>
> But anyway, when did this discussion turn to 'fairness', and national teams,
> when the original question was how to determine the best team in Europe? And
> there should be little doubt that a competition including Salzburg, AEK, or
> Midtjylland, but excluding Liverpool, Atlético (or Ajax! they're not the
> reigning Dutch champions) would be less suited to this task than the current
> set-up is.
>
> For the record, I'm against the fourth-placed team of the third- and fourth-
> ranked UEFA nations being guaranteed an automatic place in the group stages.
> Teams like Sampdoria or Hoffenheim haven't proved they qualitatively belong in
> the elite group at the expense of champions from countries ranked below 11th
> just because they qualified through a more difficult league. But the second-
> and third-placed teams usually have.
>
>
> Ciao,
> Werner

The 4th placed thing has nothing to do with fairness either, it's about
TV ratings but, and this is where the competition works in favour of
clubs from the lesser leagues. The TV revenue for each team is split by
the number of clubs in each pool, if there are 4 clubs from the EPL for
example, part of their revenue will be split 4 ways. If there's only one
club from the Netherlands or Austria, they get the full share and should
they be able to cash in on talent, as Ajax have done, it's puts them in
a position to do a Bayern domestically, their spending power suddenly
dwarfs that of their domestic rivals.

I've always maintained international football is the great leveller.

[Werner Pichler]

On Monday, 25 March 2019 11:39:42 UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 25/03/2019 17꞉07, Werner Pichler wrote:
>
> > Sure, but it's mitigated by the fact that it's still eleven against eleven
> > on the pitch.
> >
> > But anyway, when did this discussion turn to 'fairness', and national teams,
> > when the original question was how to determine the best team in Europe? And
> > there should be little doubt that a competition including Salzburg, AEK, or
> > Midtjylland, but excluding Liverpool, Atlético (or Ajax! they're not the
> > reigning Dutch champions) would be less suited to this task than the current
> > set-up is.
> >
> > For the record, I'm against the fourth-placed team of the third- and fourth-
> > ranked UEFA nations being guaranteed an automatic place in the group stages.
> > Teams like Sampdoria or Hoffenheim haven't proved they qualitatively belong
> > in the elite group at the expense of champions from countries ranked below
> > 11th just because they qualified through a more difficult league. But the
> > second- and third-placed teams usually have.
> >
> >
>

> The 4th placed thing has nothing to do with fairness either, it's about
> TV ratings but, and this is where the competition works in favour of
> clubs from the lesser leagues. The TV revenue for each team is split by
> the number of clubs in each pool, if there are 4 clubs from the EPL for
> example, part of their revenue will be split 4 ways.

Yes but the pie is so much smaller for those countries that it doesn't exactly
matter. The market pool really is creating the biggest inequalities. See for
last season:
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/competitions/General/02/57/82/51/2578251_DOWNLOAD.pdf

As far as I know the Nordic countries have been shrewdest about it, creating a
single TV market pool for all of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which has made for
a pretty big prize should one team manage to make it to the group stages (like
FCK, FCN, or Malmö did in the past). Scotland also have an enormous advantage
as TV rights are negotiated for the entire UK (in the table above, compare
Celtic's share with Sporting's!). But teams like Maribor, Qarabag or BATE will
always be enormously disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

> If there's only one club from the Netherlands or Austria, they get the full
> share and should they be able to cash in on talent, as Ajax have done, it's
> puts them in a position to do a Bayern domestically, their spending power
> suddenly dwarfs that of their domestic rivals.
>
> I've always maintained international football is the great leveller.

Yes and no. It's true that the Champions League allows regular participants
from smaller countries like Olympiacos or Basel a bigger share of the pie than
they would usually receive just through their own leagues. If that wasn't the
case, Ajax would regularly get dismantled by Burnley, not just Tottenham or Man
United. One should indeed never forget that there's more prize money at stake
in the Championship play-offs than in the Champions League final.

But on the other hand there's no denying that it's a self-perpetuating cycle.
The losers of the current set-up are the middling teams from the big leagues
(think Aston Villa never catching up with the other Premier League regulars,
and now in Championship obscurity), and the other clubs from the smaller
leagues (like all those Scottish teams not called Celtic). Only special
circumstances could dislodge Olympiacos and Basel from their respective places
in the sun (by PAOK and YB). And it takes a special brand of bad management in
order to fall out of this cycle completely. E.g. Leeds were up there in the CL
semifinals long before Arsenal ever made a similar splash, and a lot of good
did it do to them. Milan and Inter have also strayed dangerously close to CL
irrelevance. But that's the exception, not the rule.


Ciao,
Werner

[Mark]

But the Championship of Europe is about who produces the best football team, not about who happens to be from a country that has the richest TV companies.

Teams should be competing on a level playing field. If the TV companies can't make a profit from a championship of Europe where teams are treated equally, nobody's forcing them to invest their money in that tournament.

You seem to be promoting the idea of European Football selling it's soul to the TV companies.

Other than England, where nobody gives a dam about football outside their own country anyway, I can't really see how the nationality of the TV stations makes a difference anyway. Why would a Spanish TV company think they could make more money from a tournament that only includes (in terms of truly competitive teams) Spanish teams and a few clubs from 4 other countries? Why wouldn't fans be more interested in a tournament that's open to teams from all over the continent? You've said yourself that the balance of power has shifted to the rich 5 of western Europe so much that the World Club Championship is no longer relevant and they should retire it, so why would people be any more interested in a championship of Europe that the same is true of?

[Mark]

Well obviously the way to determine the best team in Europe is to have a fair tournament, otherwise the champions of Europe are the richest team in Europe, not necessarily the best.

And
> there should be little doubt that a competition including Salzburg, AEK, or
> Midtjylland, but excluding Liverpool, Atlético (or Ajax! they're not the
> reigning Dutch champions) would be less suited to this task than the current
> set-up is.

Haven't those teams already been proved to not be the best team in Europe by failing to even win their domestic Championships? How can Atletico Madrid be the best team in Europe if they're not even the best team in Spain?

[Werner Pichler]

On Tuesday, 26 March 2019 12:51:30 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
> On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 9:07:31 AM UTC, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > On Sunday, 24 March 2019 11:01:05 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:14:54 PM UTC, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 22 March 2019 12:11:32 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:04:09 PM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> > > > > > On 20/03/2019 22꞉57, MH wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not denying that.  I said that above.   But you can't blame
> > > > > > > Bosman (and certainly not Bosman alone) for the mass exodus of
> > > > > > > Argentine, Brazilian, Uruguayan and other players to Europe -
> > > > > > > especially given that quite a lot of them are not even going to EU
> > > > > > > countries (Russia, Ukraine, Turkey in particular). That is all
> > > > > > > about Economics, which are heavily in Europe's favour.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course it's not just Bosman, I said Bosman is the biggest
> > > > > > factor. I mentioned satellite TV and pay TV as factors but you
> > > > > > still need the player limits to be lifted first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > How much is it the Bosman ruling, and how much is it the ridiculously
> > > > > unfair advantages
> > > >
> > > > But isn't it an unfair advantage that Salzburg, or Celtic, or
> > > > Dudelange, get the title, and therefore a shot at the Champions League,
> > > > on a silver platter while Wolverhampton will never get near it despite
> > > > being just as strong a team? If in 1816 the Vienna Congress hadn't

> > > > decided that the former arch-bishopric of Salzburg should become part

> > > > of Austria rather than Bavaria, or in 1839 the Treaty of London hadn't
> > > > made parts of Luxembourg an independent arch-duchy, or Scotland were
> > > > stripped of their historic privilege of having their own league despite
> > > > not being independent, those three might never make it!
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suppose you could say it is, in the same kind of way as the USA and
> > > China have an unfair advantage in terms of huge populations in the World
> > > Cup, compared to Uruguay and Scotland.
> >

> > Sure, but it's mitigated by the fact that it's still eleven against Eleven

> > on the pitch.
> >
> > But anyway, when did this discussion turn to 'fairness', and national teams,
> > when the original question was how to determine the best team in Europe?
>
> Well obviously the way to determine the best team in Europe is to have a fair
> tournament, otherwise the champions of Europe are the richest team in Europe,
> not necessarily the best.
>
> > And there should be little doubt that a competition including Salzburg,
> > AEK, or Midtjylland, but excluding Liverpool, Atlético (or Ajax! they're
> > not the reigning Dutch champions) would be less suited to this task than
> > the current set-up is.
>
> Haven't those teams already been proved to not be the best team in Europe by
> failing to even win their domestic Championships? How can Atletico Madrid be
> the best team in Europe if they're not even the best team in Spain?

Because that happened a year earlier? You can turn the question on its head -
if you want to find out who's the best team in Europe in May 2019, why should
it be relevant who was the best team in Spain in 2017/18?

Ciao,
Werner

[Mehdi]

On 26/03/2019 19꞉07, Mark wrote:

> Other than England, where nobody gives a dam about football outside their own country anyway,

This isn't true. Older fans, say over 40, only care about their own
teams. Younger fans are like fans here, they follow all the big teams,
all the big leagues.

I can't really see how the nationality of the TV stations makes a
difference anyway. Why would a Spanish TV company think they could make
more money from a tournament that only includes (in terms of truly
competitive teams) Spanish teams and a few clubs from 4 other countries?
Why wouldn't fans be more interested in a tournament that's open to
teams from all over the continent? You've said yourself that the balance
of power has shifted to the rich 5 of western Europe so much that the
World Club Championship is no longer relevant and they should retire it,
so why would people be any more interested in a championship of Europe
that the same is true of?
>

England have never won the Euros, Italy last won it 50 years ago and
either side of France and Spain, Greece and Portugal won it.

[Mark]

I suppose the previous year's domestic League championships are, in effect, the qualifying round for the Champions League, and the Champions League and the Copa Libertadores are, in effect, the qualifiers for the Club World Cup. But rather than wait till the 2019 Club World Cup has finished before starting the 'qualifiers' for the next one and having the whole process take 3 years or so, obviously it's better to have an annual Club World Cup etc.

You don't need anyone other than the Champions of each country to play in the Champions League, and you don't need anyone other than the Champions of each continent to play in the Club World Cup.

[Mark]

That's the other Championship of Europe, and it proves my point to some extent. The European Championship is open to teams from all over the continent; even Portugal, Greece and Denmark can win it. And people are interested in watching it, and nobody's suggesting it should be scrapped due to the balance of power in it.

[Mehdi]

On 29/03/2019 04꞉04, Mark wrote:

> That's the other Championship of Europe, and it proves my point to some extent. The European Championship is open to teams from all over the continent; even Portugal, Greece and Denmark can win it. And people are interested in watching it, and nobody's suggesting it should be scrapped due to the balance of power in it.

Yes but no one is calling for the UCL to be scrapped either. There's
nothing but apathy for the CWC. It's a friendly tournament between
unevenly matched teams, akin to when the big European clubs tour
American or Asia and play some local jobbers.

[Werner Pichler]

On Thursday, 28 March 2019 20:48:49 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 12:02:32 PM UTC, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 26 March 2019 12:51:30 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 9:07:31 AM UTC, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > >
> > > > And there should be little doubt that a competition including
> > > > Salzburg, AEK, or Midtjylland, but excluding Liverpool, Atlético (or
> > > > Ajax! they're not the reigning Dutch champions) would be less suited
> > > > to this task than the current set-up is.
> > >
> > > Haven't those teams already been proved to not be the best team in
> > > Europe by failing to even win their domestic Championships? How can
> > > Atletico Madrid be the best team in Europe if they're not even the
> > > best team in Spain?
> >
> > Because that happened a year earlier? You can turn the question on its
> > head - if you want to find out who's the best team in Europe in May
> > 2019, why should it be relevant who was the best team in Spain in
> > 2017/18?
> >
>

> I suppose the previous year's domestic League championships are, in
> effect, the qualifying round for the Champions League, and the Champions
> League and the Copa Libertadores are, in effect, the qualifiers for the
> Club World Cup.

But in pretty much every sort of qualifiers you cannot treat everybody
participating equally if you want to make sure that (most of) the best
teams qualify. Or should e.g. CONMEBOL with its 10 member federations really
get fewer World Cup spots than OFC (with 14)? Or UEFA with its 55 members
5.5 times as many spots (currently it's less than 3 times as many)? Should
Brazil not have had a chance to become World Cup winners in 2002 because in
their qualifying campaign they were only the third-best team in South
America?

Ciao,
Werner

[Mark]

On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 10:18:21 AM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> On 29/03/2019 04꞉04, Mark wrote:
>
> > That's the other Championship of Europe, and it proves my point to some extent. The European Championship is open to teams from all over the continent; even Portugal, Greece and Denmark can win it. And people are interested in watching it, and nobody's suggesting it should be scrapped due to the balance of power in it.
>
> Yes but no one is calling for the UCL to be scrapped either.

There's as much reason for scrapping it as there is for scrapping the Club World Cup.

There's
> nothing but apathy for the CWC.

Only in some parts of Europe. In all the other continents people care about it. In Italy and Spain people care about it.

It's a friendly tournament between
> unevenly matched teams, akin to when the big European clubs tour
> American or Asia and play some local jobbers.

That's an exaggeration. River Plate and Gremio etc would give Real Madrid and Bayern Munchen etc a closer match than Crvena Zvezda and Steaua Bucharest would. Even Kashima Antlers took Real Madrid to extra time in the Final in 2016.

It's also still the World Championship. It's not a friendly tournament any more than the Champions League is.

[alka...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:37:22 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 10:18:21 AM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> > On 29/03/2019 04꞉04, Mark wrote:
> >
> > > That's the other Championship of Europe, and it proves my point to some extent. The European Championship is open to teams from all over the continent; even Portugal, Greece and Denmark can win it. And people are interested in watching it, and nobody's suggesting it should be scrapped due to the balance of power in it.
> >
> > Yes but no one is calling for the UCL to be scrapped either.
>
> There's as much reason for scrapping it as there is for scrapping the Club World Cup.

That's a preposterous statement. It is the most watched club tournament in the world. You may have a distaste for the excessive amounts of money in the modern game, but please don't project your view onto the general global fanbase and imply that most other fans feel the same way. We have objective evidence that clearly proves that they do not.

>
> There's
> > nothing but apathy for the CWC.
>
> Only in some parts of Europe. In all the other continents people care about it. In Italy and Spain people care about it.

I'm fine with keeping it around. Those who don't take it seriously have the option of fielding a weakened team, as big clubs sometimes do for domestic cups. And those who want to pretend like they won something big by winning it can do so. Teams celebrate winning the Community Shield and the European Super Cup too.

[Mohammed Baybars Mehdi]

On 30/03/2019 17꞉37, Mark wrote:

> Only in some parts of Europe. In all the other continents people care about it. In Italy and Spain people care about it.

They used to but not anymore because it's not difficult to win. It's not
a challenge.

> That's an exaggeration. River Plate and Gremio etc would give Real Madrid and Bayern Munchen etc a closer match than Crvena Zvezda and Steaua Bucharest would. Even Kashima Antlers took Real Madrid to extra time in the Final in 2016.

> It's also still the World Championship. It's not a friendly tournament any more than the Champions League is.

Most fans don't see it that way. Most TV networks don't see it that way,
I think many of the major markets didn't pick up the rights.

[Mark]

On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 11:34:25 AM UTC, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:37:22 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> > On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 10:18:21 AM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> > > On 29/03/2019 04꞉04, Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's the other Championship of Europe, and it proves my point to some extent. The European Championship is open to teams from all over the continent; even Portugal, Greece and Denmark can win it. And people are interested in watching it, and nobody's suggesting it should be scrapped due to the balance of power in it.
> > >
> > > Yes but no one is calling for the UCL to be scrapped either.
> >
> > There's as much reason for scrapping it as there is for scrapping the Club World Cup.
>
> That's a preposterous statement. It is the most watched club tournament in the world. You may have a distaste for the excessive amounts of money in the modern game, but please don't project your view onto the general global fanbase and imply that most other fans feel the same way. We have objective evidence that clearly proves that they do not.

Well OK, there's as much reason for fans to think it should be scrapped, but for some reason they think a tournament that you have to be Italian, German, English, French or Spanish to have any chance to win is perfectly OK if it's called the Champions League but not if it's called the Club World Cup.

>
> >
And those who want to pretend like they won something big by winning it can do so.

How can a team that's just won the World Championship be pretending to have won something big? You can't get bigger than that!

[Mark]

How important is it to have most of the best teams in the World or European Championship? As long as you've got the best team there, they're going to be genuine champions.

What's wrong with going back to having the champions of each country battling it out for the championship of Europe, and the 7th best and 10th best teams etc playing in the Europa League? Especially considering that would reduce fixture congestion, and make a more meaningful World Championship more viable.

[alka...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:46:38 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 11:34:25 AM UTC, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:37:22 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 10:18:21 AM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> > > > On 29/03/2019 04꞉04, Mark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That's the other Championship of Europe, and it proves my point to some extent. The European Championship is open to teams from all over the continent; even Portugal, Greece and Denmark can win it. And people are interested in watching it, and nobody's suggesting it should be scrapped due to the balance of power in it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes but no one is calling for the UCL to be scrapped either.
> > >
> > > There's as much reason for scrapping it as there is for scrapping the Club World Cup.
> >
> > That's a preposterous statement. It is the most watched club tournament in the world. You may have a distaste for the excessive amounts of money in the modern game, but please don't project your view onto the general global fanbase and imply that most other fans feel the same way. We have objective evidence that clearly proves that they do not.
>
> Well OK, there's as much reason for fans to think it should be scrapped, but for some reason they think a tournament that you have to be Italian, German, English, French or Spanish to have any chance to win is perfectly OK if it's called the Champions League but not if it's called the Club World Cup.

I'm not sure if I follow what your point here?

> >
> > >
> And those who want to pretend like they won something big by winning it can do so.
>
> How can a team that's just won the World Championship be pretending to have won something big? You can't get bigger than that!

Because it's just a label. The tournament format isn't rigorous enough to test anything.

[Mehdi]

On 31/03/2019 16꞉46, Mark wrote:

> Well OK, there's as much reason for fans to think it should be
> scrapped, but for some reason they think a tournament
> that you have to be Italian, German, English, French or Spanish to
> have any chance to win is perfectly OK if it's called the
> Champions League but not if it's called the Club World Cup.

Fans don't want it scrapped and no, teams from the lesser leagues
shouldn't be winning it, the teams with the best players should win it
and invariably they do. That's why the Spanish, English and Italian
leagues dominate. You pay the best wages and sign the best players, they
win the big prizes. It's a competition, not a charity.

> How can a team that's just won the World Championship be pretending
to > have won something big? You can't get bigger than that!

It's a World Championship in name only. The average fan doesn't see it
as such as fans and the TV networks that serve them determine what is
and isn't important.

[Werner Pichler]

> How important is it to have most of the best teams in the World or European
> Championship?

Huh? Extremely important, I'd venture to say. The best teams playing each other
is what the overwhelming majority of people are interested in, and it's their
interest that drives the economical machinery connected to it.

> As long as you've got the best team there, they're going to be genuine
> champions.

You appear in a constant confusion between the objective title of 'champions',
by virtue of having won a competition, and the totally subjective designation of
'best team'. These are tournaments. In consecutive knock-out rounds, even the
biggest favourites are liable to the odd loss, and elimination. The 'best team'
at the beginning of the Champions League in September needn't be the 'best
team' in May at its conclusion. In fact, it's highly unlikely.

> What's wrong with going back to having the champions of each country battling

> it out for the championship of Europe, and the 7th best and 10th best Teams

> etc playing in the Europa League?

It would render the European Cup irrelevant. The big teams would find other
outlets to satisfy the worldwide desire for matches at the top level and take
things out of UEFA's and into their own hands. At worst, we'd arrive at a
situation like in Basketball where exactly this happened, with the so-called
'Champions League' languishing in the shadow of the club-run EuroLeague and
EuroCup.



Ciao,
Werner

[Mark]

On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 7:59:13 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:46:38 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 11:34:25 AM UTC, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 5:37:22 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 10:18:21 AM UTC, Mehdi wrote:
> > > > > On 29/03/2019 04꞉04, Mark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's the other Championship of Europe, and it proves my point to some extent. The European Championship is open to teams from all over the continent; even Portugal, Greece and Denmark can win it. And people are interested in watching it, and nobody's suggesting it should be scrapped due to the balance of power in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes but no one is calling for the UCL to be scrapped either.
> > > >
> > > > There's as much reason for scrapping it as there is for scrapping the Club World Cup.
> > >
> > > That's a preposterous statement. It is the most watched club tournament in the world. You may have a distaste for the excessive amounts of money in the modern game, but please don't project your view onto the general global fanbase and imply that most other fans feel the same way. We have objective evidence that clearly proves that they do not.
> >
> > Well OK, there's as much reason for fans to think it should be scrapped, but for some reason they think a tournament that you have to be Italian, German, English, French or Spanish to have any chance to win is perfectly OK if it's called the Champions League but not if it's called the Club World Cup.
>
> I'm not sure if I follow what your point here?
>

Reasons for scrapping the Champions League: the only teams that can win it are teams from the rich 5 of western Europe.

Reasons for scrapping the Club World Cup: the only teams that can win it are teams from the rich 5 of western Europe.

The only difference is the fact that the Champions League happens to be more popular.

[Mark]

On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 4:06:59 AM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 31/03/2019 16꞉46, Mark wrote:
>
> > Well OK, there's as much reason for fans to think it should be
> > scrapped, but for some reason they think a tournament
> > that you have to be Italian, German, English, French or Spanish to
> > have any chance to win is perfectly OK if it's called the
> > Champions League but not if it's called the Club World Cup.
>
> Fans don't want it scrapped and no, teams from the lesser leagues
> shouldn't be winning it, the teams with the best players should win it
> and invariably they do. That's why the Spanish, English and Italian
> leagues dominate. You pay the best wages and sign the best players, they
> win the big prizes. It's a competition, not a charity.

But it's only because of the unfair advantages I mentioned earlier, and the resulting financial gulf between the rich west and the poor east that Barcelona, Paris Saint Germain and Borussia Dortmund have the best players. If the Champions League was run fairly, Crvena Zvezda, Dynamo Kyiv and Steaua Bucharest would still have some of the better players too.

The best teams should win it, not the teams that get 4 points just for turning up to the group stage and have huge financial resources.

>
> > How can a team that's just won the World Championship be pretending
> to > have won something big? You can't get bigger than that!
>
> It's a World Championship in name only. The average fan doesn't see it
> as such as fans and the TV networks that serve them determine what is
> and isn't important.

It's the only World Championship we've got. The World Championship is a bigger measure of success than the championship of a single continent by definition. The fact that some TV companies don't bother to show it doesn't alter that fact.

[Mark]

As a result of this discussion, I think I am beginning to see why people think there should be more teams in the Club World Cup. But then you've got the whole issue of fixture congestion.

>
> > As long as you've got the best team there, they're going to be genuine
> > champions.
>
> You appear in a constant confusion between the objective title of 'champions',
> by virtue of having won a competition, and the totally subjective designation of
> 'best team'. These are tournaments. In consecutive knock-out rounds, even the
> biggest favourites are liable to the odd loss, and elimination. The 'best team'
> at the beginning of the Champions League in September needn't be the 'best
> team' in May at its conclusion. In fact, it's highly unlikely.

Yes the Champions aren't necessarily the best team, that's true. If the Champions of each country play each other for the Championship of Europe, and then the Champions of each continent play each other for the World Championship, then you have a genuine World Champion though.

>
>
> > What's wrong with going back to having the champions of each country battling
> > it out for the championship of Europe, and the 7th best and 10th best Teams
> > etc playing in the Europa League?
>
> It would render the European Cup irrelevant. The big teams would find other
> outlets to satisfy the worldwide desire for matches at the top level and take
> things out of UEFA's and into their own hands. At worst, we'd arrive at a
> situation like in Basketball where exactly this happened, with the so-called
> 'Champions League' languishing in the shadow of the club-run EuroLeague and
> EuroCup.
>

Hasn't the unfair format and the free points for big teams just for turning up in the group stage already rendered the European Cup somewhat irrelevant? Certainly the fact that so many teams are playing in the Champions League has left so little room in the calendar, that some people seem to to think that the Club World Cup is irrelevant.

Howabout only having the Champions of each country playing in the Champions League (apart from anything else it would make the name more sensible) for the sake of reducing fixture congestion? (The top teams that aren't domestic champions have always got the Europa League to play in.) Then we've got more room in the calendar for a World Club Championship that includes more of the best teams in the world.

[Mehdi]

On 02/04/2019 16꞉05, Mark wrote:

> Reasons for scrapping the Champions League: the only teams that can
> win it are teams from the rich 5 of western Europe.

A non reason. It's a competition to determine the best team in Europe.
The best teams have the best players. The best players play in the rich
leagues.

> Reasons for scrapping the Club World Cup: the only teams that can
> win it are teams from the rich 5 of western Europe.

Wrong. The reason is no one really cares about it anymore.

> The only difference is the fact that the Champions League happens
to > be more popular.

Yes, that's a significant difference. No one pays for free. This isn't a
kick about at school or in the park, these are competitions watched by
millions, funded by billions. I couldn't care less if a team outside
England, Spain, Italy or Germany never win the EC again, nor should
they. It's inconceivable that outside of an anomaly like PSG, that a
league can produce a team with several world class players capable of
overcoming the best players in the World over the course of a season.
Their domestic competitions simply aren't good enough, not rich enough,
not popular enough. If you want parity, don't watch team sports, watch
tennis.

[Mehdi]

On 02/04/2019 16꞉28, Mark wrote:

> But it's only because of the unfair advantages I mentioned earlier, and the resulting financial gulf between the rich west and the poor east that Barcelona, Paris Saint Germain and Borussia Dortmund have the best players. If the Champions League was run fairly, Crvena Zvezda, Dynamo Kyiv and Steaua Bucharest would still have some of the better players too.

It is run fairly. There is nothing unfair in certain leagues being more
popular than others and tv money reflects that.

> The best teams should win it, not the teams that get 4 points just for turning up to the group stage and have huge financial resources.

The best teams do win it.

> It's the only World Championship we've got. The World Championship is a bigger measure of success than the championship of a single continent by definition. The fact that some TV companies don't bother to show it doesn't alter that fact.

It's not a fact. It's not a recognised World Championship. It never has
been.

[Mehdi]

On 02/04/2019 17꞉39, Mark wrote:

> As a result of this discussion, I think I am beginning to see why people think there should be more teams in the Club World Cup. But then you've got the whole issue of fixture congestion.

Er, people don't think that. There's no demand for it. FIFA want to
expand the competition and the clubs have told them to get lost.

> Yes the Champions aren't necessarily the best team, that's true. If the Champions of each country play each other for the Championship of Europe, and then the Champions of each continent play each other for the World Championship, then you have a genuine World Champion though.

We don't need a WORLD champion. The European champions are arguably the
best team in the World in the same way the Superbowl champions are the
best gridiron team in the world, in the same way whoever wins the world
series is the best Baseball team in the World.

> Hasn't the unfair format and the free points for big teams just for turning up in the group stage already rendered the European Cup somewhat irrelevant? Certainly the fact that so many teams are playing in the Champions League has left so little room in the calendar, that some people seem to to think that the Club World Cup is irrelevant.

There's nothing unfair in the format and the big teams have to win to
get those points.

> Howabout only having the Champions of each country playing in the Champions League (apart from anything else it would make the name more sensible) for the sake of reducing fixture congestion? (The top teams that aren't domestic champions have always got the Europa League to play in.) Then we've got more room in the calendar for a World Club Championship that includes more of the best teams in the world.

You are hopelessly out of touch with what fans want.

[Werner Pichler]

On Tuesday, 2 April 2019 11:39:19 UTC+2, Mark wrote:
> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 9:00:36 AM UTC+1, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > On Sunday, 31 March 2019 11:05:50 UTC+2, Mark wrote:
> >
> >

> > > What's wrong with going back to having the champions of each Country

> > > battling it out for the championship of Europe, and the 7th best and 10th

> > > best teams etc playing in the Europa League?

> >
> > It would render the European Cup irrelevant. The big teams would find other
> > outlets to satisfy the worldwide desire for matches at the top level and
> > take things out of UEFA's and into their own hands. At worst, we'd arrive
> > at a situation like in Basketball where exactly this happened, with the so-
> > called 'Champions League' languishing in the shadow of the club-run
> > EuroLeague and EuroCup.
> >
> Hasn't the unfair format and the free points for big teams just for turning
> up in the group stage already rendered the European Cup somewhat irrelevant?

There's absolutely nothing to indicate that interest in the Champions League,
and therefore its relevance, is in any way waning.

> Certainly the fact that so many teams are playing in the Champions League has
> left so little room in the calendar, that some people seem to to think that
> the Club World Cup is irrelevant.

Nothing to do with the calendar, everything to do with the perceived merit.
There's not too much interest in the various Super Cups either.

> Howabout only having the Champions of each country playing in the Champions
> League (apart from anything else it would make the name more sensible)

It's just a label. No need to be punctilious about it.

> for the sake of reducing fixture congestion? (The top teams that aren't
> domestic champions have always got the Europa League to play in.)

And how would that reduce fixture congestion if it's just another competition?
BTW UEFA already reduced the number of Champions League matches back when they
ditched the second group phase.

> Then we've got more room in the calendar for a World Club Championship that
> includes more of the best teams in the world.

So like kind of a worldwide Champions League? That's what FIFA dream of, for
purely sportive reasons of course, ahem.


Look, I get the frustration at some of the benefits of the big leagues. After
all, the champions of my country have failed to qualify ten times in a row,
with everybody laughing at the fat mouse getting stuck in the door to the
pantry without anybody ever looking at the big cats who deliberately made said
door two sizes too small.

But there are a lot of factors to consider. E.g. it's not unfair to award four
bonus points to already qualified teams, because they have no chance to
collect cheap points in the qualifiers. OTOH, if you let everybody go through
qualifiers, those teams that are drawn against the big guns will have no chance
and it's basically down to luck to avoid those in the draws. If there should
be e.g. ten spots available through qualifiers but you can draw Barcelona or Man
City, or just five spots but you 'only' have to deal with Olympiacos or
Fenerbahçe, as a smaller team it's not at all simple to say which way is
preferable. That said, the fourth-placed teams of the Big 4 should absolutely
*not* be guaranteed a Champions League spot, that was UEFA pandering.

Furthermore, to diminish the stature of the Champions League (and not allowing
Atlético, Real, Liverpool, Benfica, Ajax, etc. in it would be diminishing it)
would only increase the stature of the bigger leagues even more. Dislike it
as much as you want, but fewer people are interested in Celtic vs Red Star
Belgrade than in Everton vs West Ham. The Champions League in its current
set-up is far from perfect but it's the only way teams like Ajax or PSV can even
think of staving off even teams like Burnley who are already far richer just due
to them playing in the Premier League. Look at which teams the Dutch
powerhouses had to sell some their star players to in recent years - Everton,
Crystal Palace, Southampton, Brighton.


Ciao,
Werner

[Mehdi]

On 04/04/2019 19꞉03, Werner Pichler wrote:

> Furthermore, to diminish the stature of the Champions League (and not allowing
> Atlético, Real, Liverpool, Benfica, Ajax, etc. in it would be diminishing it)
> would only increase the stature of the bigger leagues even more. Dislike it
> as much as you want, but fewer people are interested in Celtic vs Red Star
> Belgrade than in Everton vs West Ham. The Champions League in its current
> set-up is far from perfect but it's the only way teams like Ajax or PSV can even
> think of staving off even teams like Burnley who are already far richer just due
> to them playing in the Premier League. Look at which teams the Dutch
> powerhouses had to sell some their star players to in recent years - Everton,
> Crystal Palace, Southampton, Brighton.
>
>
> Ciao,
> Werner

Let's look at the teams from outside the big 4 leagues in the group stages:

Brugge
Monaco
PSV
Red Star
Porto
Galatasaray
Lokomotiv Moscow
Ajax
Benfica
AEK Athens
Lyon
Shakhtar Donetsk
Viktoria Pizen
CSKA Moscow
Young Boys

15/32 spots. Most of these teams sucked, got hammered and made a lot of
money.

By playing in the Champions League, Ajax have showcased their new talent
and sold De Jong for €75 million and de Ligt is almost certainly going
to be sold for over €60 million. That's €130+ million from 2 players
which will (presumably) push Ajax's revenue above clubs like Burnley,
Palace, Everton etc, etc. Those teams who will almost certainly never
play in the UCL precisely because the EPL is so competitive which of
course gives teams from lesser leagues a chance to compete in the UCL
and make millions.

[Mark]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 2:46:53 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 02/04/2019 16꞉05, Mark wrote:
>
> > Reasons for scrapping the Champions League: the only teams that can
> > win it are teams from the rich 5 of western Europe.
>
> A non reason. It's a competition to determine the best team in Europe.
> The best teams have the best players. The best players play in the rich
> leagues.

And those leagues are rich because they're the leagues that get 4 points per team for turning up for the group stage, and don't have to actually qualify for it. It's easy to get to the later rounds and make lots of money and attract better players with the unfair advantages the teams from those leagues get.

>
> > Reasons for scrapping the Club World Cup: the only teams that can
> > win it are teams from the rich 5 of western Europe.
>
> Wrong. The reason is no one really cares about it anymore.

But the reason less people care about it is because only the teams from the rich 5 of western Europe can win it. People cared about when the South American teams could compete with them in the 1980s.

>
> > The only difference is the fact that the Champions League happens
> to > be more popular.
>
> Yes, that's a significant difference. No one pays for free. This isn't a
> kick about at school or in the park, these are competitions watched by
> millions, funded by billions. I couldn't care less if a team outside
> England, Spain, Italy or Germany never win the EC again, nor should
> they. It's inconceivable that outside of an anomaly like PSG, that a
> league can produce a team with several world class players capable of
> overcoming the best players in the World over the course of a season.
> Their domestic competitions simply aren't good enough, not rich enough,
> not popular enough. If you want parity, don't watch team sports, watch
> tennis.

But if nobody outside of the rich 5 ever win the Champions League again, what's to stop it becoming irrelevant? (or at least as irrelevant as you think the Club World Cup has become.)

[Mark]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 2:50:44 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 02/04/2019 16꞉28, Mark wrote:
>
> > But it's only because of the unfair advantages I mentioned earlier, and the resulting financial gulf between the rich west and the poor east that Barcelona, Paris Saint Germain and Borussia Dortmund have the best players. If the Champions League was run fairly, Crvena Zvezda, Dynamo Kyiv and Steaua Bucharest would still have some of the better players too.
>
> It is run fairly. There is nothing unfair in certain leagues being more
> popular than others and tv money reflects that.

Giving teams automatic qualification for the 4th round, and then gifting them 4 points towards their country's UEFA coefficient just for turning up is very unfair.

>
> > The best teams should win it, not the teams that get 4 points just for turning up to the group stage and have huge financial resources.
>
> The best teams do win it.

No, the rich teams which get 4 points just for turning up win it. Before the unfair advantages were introduced, teams from Serbia, Romania, Scotland, Portugal and the Netherlands won it.

Ajax were the best team in Europe from 1971-73, and Benfica were the best team in Europe from 1961-62; and there's no reason to believe that if the Champions League was run fairly they wouldn't produce the best teams now too.

>
> > It's the only World Championship we've got. The World Championship is a bigger measure of success than the championship of a single continent by definition. The fact that some TV companies don't bother to show it doesn't alter that fact.
>
> It's not a fact. It's not a recognised World Championship. It never has
> been.

It's recognized by FIFA at the very least. Isn't that enough?

[Werner Pichler]

On Friday, 5 April 2019 12:11:26 UTC+2, Mark wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 2:50:44 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> > On 02/04/2019 16꞉28, Mark wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The best teams should win it, not the teams that get 4 points just
> > > for turning up to the group stage and have huge financial resources.
> >
> > The best teams do win it.
>
> No, the rich teams which get 4 points just for turning up win it. Before
> the unfair advantages were introduced, teams from Serbia, Romania,
> Scotland, Portugal and the Netherlands won it.
>
> Ajax were the best team in Europe from 1971-73, and Benfica were the best
> team in Europe from 1961-62; and there's no reason to believe that if the
> Champions League was run fairly they wouldn't produce the best teams now
> too.

Ajax were the best team in 1994-96 as well, already in the full CL era, and
it didn't matter one bit as they were still dismantled because of their
smaller league and Bosman.

I'll repeat it again: the Champions League or those laughable 4 bonus points
are not at the root of the disparities in modern European football, the
+100m€ that even the last-placed team of the Premier League gets out of
their TV contract is.

Ciao,
Werner

[Mark]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 2:57:15 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 02/04/2019 17꞉39, Mark wrote:
>
> > As a result of this discussion, I think I am beginning to see why people think there should be more teams in the Club World Cup. But then you've got the whole issue of fixture congestion.
>
> Er, people don't think that. There's no demand for it. FIFA want to
> expand the competition and the clubs have told them to get lost.
>
> > Yes the Champions aren't necessarily the best team, that's true. If the Champions of each country play each other for the Championship of Europe, and then the Champions of each continent play each other for the World Championship, then you have a genuine World Champion though.
>
> We don't need a WORLD champion. The European champions are arguably the
> best team in the World in the same way the Superbowl champions are the
> best gridiron team in the world, in the same way whoever wins the world
> series is the best Baseball team in the World.

That's what the Europeans were saying in the 1980s when the South Americans were proving otherwise on the pitch wasn't it? Just like the English were claiming they were the best national team in the world while Uruguay and Italy were winning all the World Cups until Hungary taught them how to play football in the 1950s.

How can the world's number 1 sport not need a World Championship? If the European champions really are the best team in the world, they should prove it on the pitch.

>
> > Hasn't the unfair format and the free points for big teams just for turning up in the group stage already rendered the European Cup somewhat irrelevant? Certainly the fact that so many teams are playing in the Champions League has left so little room in the calendar, that some people seem to to think that the Club World Cup is irrelevant.
>
> There's nothing unfair in the format and the big teams have to win to
> get those points.

Who do the big teams have to win against to get those points?

>
> > Howabout only having the Champions of each country playing in the Champions League (apart from anything else it would make the name more sensible) for the sake of reducing fixture congestion? (The top teams that aren't domestic champions have always got the Europa League to play in.) Then we've got more room in the calendar for a World Club Championship that includes more of the best teams in the world.
>
> You are hopelessly out of touch with what fans want.

Well, not all fans.

[Mark]

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:03:22 PM UTC+1, Werner Pichler wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 April 2019 11:39:19 UTC+2, Mark wrote:
> > On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 9:00:36 AM UTC+1, Werner Pichler wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 31 March 2019 11:05:50 UTC+2, Mark wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > What's wrong with going back to having the champions of each Country
> > > > battling it out for the championship of Europe, and the 7th best and 10th
> > > > best teams etc playing in the Europa League?
> > >
> > > It would render the European Cup irrelevant. The big teams would find other
> > > outlets to satisfy the worldwide desire for matches at the top level and
> > > take things out of UEFA's and into their own hands. At worst, we'd arrive
> > > at a situation like in Basketball where exactly this happened, with the so-
> > > called 'Champions League' languishing in the shadow of the club-run
> > > EuroLeague and EuroCup.
> > >
> > Hasn't the unfair format and the free points for big teams just for turning
> > up in the group stage already rendered the European Cup somewhat irrelevant?
>
> There's absolutely nothing to indicate that interest in the Champions League,
> and therefore its relevance, is in any way waning.

There was nothing to indicate that interest in the European Cup with only the Champions of each country playing was waning either though.

>
>
> > Certainly the fact that so many teams are playing in the Champions League has
> > left so little room in the calendar, that some people seem to to think that
> > the Club World Cup is irrelevant.
>
> Nothing to do with the calendar, everything to do with the perceived merit.
> There's not too much interest in the various Super Cups either.

But the perceived merit is because noone from outside the rich 5 of western Europe can win it.

>
>
> > Howabout only having the Champions of each country playing in the Champions
> > League (apart from anything else it would make the name more sensible)
>
> It's just a label. No need to be punctilious about it.
>
>
> > for the sake of reducing fixture congestion? (The top teams that aren't
> > domestic champions have always got the Europa League to play in.)
>
> And how would that reduce fixture congestion if it's just another competition?
> BTW UEFA already reduced the number of Champions League matches back when they
> ditched the second group phase.

They didn't reduce it by enough.

>
>
> > Then we've got more room in the calendar for a World Club Championship that
> > includes more of the best teams in the world.
>
> So like kind of a worldwide Champions League? That's what FIFA dream of, for
> purely sportive reasons of course, ahem.

Well, IF it is for purely sporting reasons, it wouldn't be a bad idea would it? (Calling it a Champions League would be bad though.)

>
>
> Look, I get the frustration at some of the benefits of the big leagues. After
> all, the champions of my country have failed to qualify ten times in a row,
> with everybody laughing at the fat mouse getting stuck in the door to the
> pantry without anybody ever looking at the big cats who deliberately made said
> door two sizes too small.
>
> But there are a lot of factors to consider. E.g. it's not unfair to award four
> bonus points to already qualified teams, because they have no chance to
> collect cheap points in the qualifiers. OTOH, if you let everybody go through
> qualifiers, those teams that are drawn against the big guns will have no chance
> and it's basically down to luck to avoid those in the draws. If there should
> be e.g. ten spots available through qualifiers but you can draw Barcelona or Man
> City, or just five spots but you 'only' have to deal with Olympiacos or
> Fenerbahçe, as a smaller team it's not at all simple to say which way is
> preferable. That said, the fourth-placed teams of the Big 4 should absolutely
> *not* be guaranteed a Champions League spot, that was UEFA pandering.

Yes I see your point. Personally, I think I'd prefer to have everyone playing in the qualifiers and take my chances against Barcelona though. And nobody ever complained about it in the 1980s.

>
> Furthermore, to diminish the stature of the Champions League (and not allowing
> Atlético, Real, Liverpool, Benfica, Ajax, etc. in it would be diminishing it)
> would only increase the stature of the bigger leagues even more. Dislike it
> as much as you want, but fewer people are interested in Celtic vs Red Star
> Belgrade than in Everton vs West Ham.

I suppose that raises the question, why are fewer people interested in Celtic v Red Star Belgrade? I'd be far more interested in Celtic v Red Star Belgrade myself!

[Mehdi]

On 05/04/2019 17꞉54, Mark wrote:

> And those leagues are rich because they're the leagues that get 4 points per team for turning up for the group stage, and don't have to actually qualify for it. It's easy to get to the later rounds and make lots of money and attract better players with the unfair advantages the teams from those leagues get.

The domestic rights fees in the top leagues dwarf the revenue the clubs
earn from the UCL. They're rich because they play in rich leagues.

> But the reason less people care about it is because only the teams from the rich 5 of western Europe can win it. People cared about when the South American teams could compete with them in the 1980s.

Nope. It's never been a draw for your average fan. The lack of interest
from broadcasters is evidence of that. Most countries don't bother to
pick up the rights, they never did.

> But if nobody outside of the rich 5 ever win the Champions League again, what's to stop it becoming irrelevant? (or at least as irrelevant as you think the Club World Cup has become.)

The CWC is irrelevant because there is no demand for it, among fans and
among sponsors. As hard as it is for you to accept, the lesser leagues
don't matter outside of their own markets, the Dutch league, the
Scottish league, the Belgian league, you name it, in the greater scheme
of things they are irrelevant beyond their borders, they simply don't
have the international appeal of the top European leagues and the reason
the EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga and La Liga are top leagues is because they
happen to be the leagues in the wealthiest European countries, with the
largest populations, leagues in which with fans pay a hell of a lot more
to watch their teams than fans in the Netherlands or Belgian or wherever
the case may be, pay. I'm not sure why you think it's 'unfair' that
teams from the Netherlands for example, with a population of only 17
million, with low average attendances, with negligible interest outside
their own (small) market, should earn as much as the top teams. Why
should they? It's like arguing Real Madrid's basketball team should pull
in the same revenue as the Phoenix Suns. Of course they shouldn't, one
competes in a tiny market and the other competes in the biggest market
in that particular sport. The UCL is unashamedly about elitism, as it
should be. The point of the competition is to determine the best team in
Europe. The best team in Europe should have the best players, the
biggest stars, players that earn the most money. An underdog story is
fine once in a while but the huge appeal of this sport isn't in underdog
stories, it's in the biggest teams and the best players.

[Mehdi]

On 05/04/2019 18꞉11, Mark wrote:

> No, the rich teams which get 4 points just for turning up win it. Before the unfair advantages were introduced, teams from Serbia, Romania, Scotland, Portugal and the Netherlands won it.

No one gets points for turning up and before the changes, the top
leagues STILL dominated. Only ONE team from Scotland, Yugoslavia and
Romania has ever won the European Cup and while you look back fondly to
'better days', you should know the finals were almost always absolutely
terrible because teams, either one or both, were gripped with fear and
took a low risk approach. From 1978-1988, no team won the final by more
than a single goal, before Milan came along and gave the commies from
Steaua a pasting. Celtic? They won by a single goal. Red Star, PSV and
Steaua Bucharest all won 0-0 finals on penalties. Ok, so Benfica and
Ajax were great, in the 1960s and 1970s, but then Elvis and Bruce Lee
were still alive, I fail to see the relevance. The competition was on
life support, from poor finals to hooliganism, it needed to change and
those changes were absolutely for the better. The commercialism of
football and the Bosman ruling has put paid to the hopes of teams from
the lesser leagues of winning the competition, not the extra places. The
extra places wouldn't have stopped the top European clubs, rich with
satellite TV money, from cherry picking the best players from the rest
of Europe.

> It's recognized by FIFA at the very least. Isn't that enough?

FIFA run the international game, not the club game. That's why their
ideas about the changes in the format haven't been welcomed by the top
European clubs and why the CWC was never universally accepted.

[Mehdi]

On 05/04/2019 18꞉55, Mark wrote:

>> We don't need a WORLD champion. The European champions are arguably the
>> best team in the World in the same way the Superbowl champions are the
>> best gridiron team in the world, in the same way whoever wins the world
>> series is the best Baseball team in the World.
>
> That's what the Europeans were saying in the 1980s when the South Americans were proving otherwise on the pitch wasn't it? Just like the English were claiming they were the best national team in the world while Uruguay and Italy were winning all the World Cups until Hungary taught them how to play football in the 1950s.

SMH. The point is the South Americans aren't proving otherwise ANYMORE
because of Bosman and because of the differences in TV revenue.

> How can the world's number 1 sport not need a World Championship? If the European champions really are the best team in the world, they should prove it on the pitch.

Who says there is a 'need'? Not the fans, not the networks and not the
sponsors and, for some reason, you keep overlooking the fact that we
still have a CWC, now exclusively dominated by the European Champions
which is precisely why it's redundant! There was a debate as to which
continent was better, because finals used to be evenly contested, there
is no longer that debate in club football, western Europe is the
dominant force in the club game and it's heading that way
internationally as well.

[Mehdi]

On 05/04/2019 19꞉17, Mark wrote:

> There was nothing to indicate that interest in the European Cup with only the Champions of each country playing was waning either though.

We don't have the data, outside of attendances, but poor finals and
hooliganism had tarnished the competition, we know that for certain.
European football was in a dark place in the 1980s.

> But the perceived merit is because noone from outside the rich 5 of western Europe can win it.

They can't win it because they're not good enough.

> They didn't reduce it by enough.

The TV contracts suggest otherwise. The re-barnding has been a fantastic
success for UEFA.

> I suppose that raises the question, why are fewer people interested in Celtic v Red Star Belgrade? I'd be far more interested in Celtic v Red Star Belgrade myself!

Why do you think? Because they don't have great players. It's not 1988.
It's 2018. We're in the digital age. We can watch any game from any
league, we're no longer at the mercy of network TV. Live football is no
longer a novelty, live sport is no longer a novelty and is competing
with video game, YouTube and a host of streaming platforms for interest
and that is precisly why your average football fan is going to watch the
cream of the crop and not two random jobbers playing. People have better
things to do with their time. If I have the opportunity to watch the
best players, the best teams, playing state of the art football, why
would I watch the primitive crap Celtic serve up?

[Mark]

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:47:24 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 05/04/2019 17꞉54, Mark wrote:
>

> > But the reason less people care about it is because only the teams from the rich 5 of western Europe can win it. People cared about when the South American teams could compete with them in the 1980s.
>
> Nope. It's never been a draw for your average fan. The lack of interest
> from broadcasters is evidence of that. Most countries don't bother to
> pick up the rights, they never did.

Lots of fans in South America and Italy and Spain cared about it.
>

[Mark]

[Mark]

Google groups seem to have posted this before I wrote anything. Sorry.

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 1:18:00 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:

> On 05/04/2019 18꞉11, Mark wrote:
>
> > No, the rich teams which get 4 points just for turning up win it. Before the unfair advantages were introduced, teams from Serbia, Romania, Scotland, Portugal and the Netherlands won it.
>
> No one gets points for turning up

Lots of teams qualify automatically for the group stage and get 4 points towards their countries UEFA coefficient just for turning up.

and before the changes, the top
> leagues STILL dominated. Only ONE team from Scotland, Yugoslavia and
> Romania has ever won the European Cup and while you look back fondly to
> 'better days', you should know the finals were almost always absolutely
> terrible because teams, either one or both, were gripped with fear and
> took a low risk approach. From 1978-1988, no team won the final by more
> than a single goal, before Milan came along and gave the commies from
> Steaua a pasting. Celtic? They won by a single goal. Red Star, PSV and
> Steaua Bucharest all won 0-0 finals on penalties. Ok, so Benfica and
> Ajax were great, in the 1960s and 1970s, but then Elvis and Bruce Lee
> were still alive, I fail to see the relevance.

It was just as relevant as the 1980s. The tournament was run fairly, with everyone starting in the same round and no bonus points just for turning up.

The competition was on
> life support, from poor finals to hooliganism, it needed to change and
> those changes were absolutely for the better.

I don't see how the changes made any difference to hooliganism. As for poor finals, as far as I know none of the finals that Ajax in the 70s or Benfica in the 60s won were poor. And the finals that were played between 2 genuine champions in the late 1980s and the 1990s were better quality finals than when the runners-up of the rich leagues started reaching the finals from 1999 onwards. Red Star Belgrade may have only won on penalties in 1991, but they played good quality football.

> > It's recognized by FIFA at the very least. Isn't that enough?
>
> FIFA run the international game, not the club game. That's why their
> ideas about the changes in the format haven't been welcomed by the top
> European clubs and why the CWC was never universally accepted.

They run the club game too. FIFA run the World Cup and the World Club Championship; UEFA run the European Championship and the Champions League and Europa League. They both run tournaments for clubs aswell as national teams.

[Mark]

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 1:28:04 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 05/04/2019 18꞉55, Mark wrote:
>
> >> We don't need a WORLD champion. The European champions are arguably the
> >> best team in the World in the same way the Superbowl champions are the
> >> best gridiron team in the world, in the same way whoever wins the world
> >> series is the best Baseball team in the World.
> >
> > That's what the Europeans were saying in the 1980s when the South Americans were proving otherwise on the pitch wasn't it? Just like the English were claiming they were the best national team in the world while Uruguay and Italy were winning all the World Cups until Hungary taught them how to play football in the 1950s.
>
> SMH. The point is the South Americans aren't proving otherwise ANYMORE
> because of Bosman and because of the differences in TV revenue.

It's too early to write the South American teams off. It's only 6 years since Corinthians won the Club World Cup. Nobody was writing the Europeans off when they went 8 years without a World Championship from 1977-1984.

>
> > How can the world's number 1 sport not need a World Championship? If the European champions really are the best team in the world, they should prove it on the pitch.
>
> Who says there is a 'need'? Not the fans, not the networks and not the
> sponsors

Some fans think there's a need. This isn't baseball, where nobody outside the USA plays it. Football is a world game. Why doesn't it need a World Championship?

and, for some reason, you keep overlooking the fact that we
> still have a CWC, now exclusively dominated by the European Champions
> which is precisely why it's redundant!

But the Champions League is exclusively dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western Europe just the same. So why isn't that redundant?

There was a debate as to which
> continent was better, because finals used to be evenly contested, there
> is no longer that debate in club football, western Europe is the
> dominant force in the club game and it's heading that way
> internationally as well.

That's probably true, and that's likely to do with money too.

[Mark]

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 1:43:39 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 05/04/2019 19꞉17, Mark wrote:
>

> > But the perceived merit is because noone from outside the rich 5 of western Europe can win it.
>
> They can't win it because they're not good enough.

They can't win it because they're not rich enough. And the same is true of the Champions League.

> > I suppose that raises the question, why are fewer people interested in Celtic v Red Star Belgrade? I'd be far more interested in Celtic v Red Star Belgrade myself!
>
> Why do you think? Because they don't have great players. It's not 1988.
> It's 2018. We're in the digital age. We can watch any game from any
> league, we're no longer at the mercy of network TV. Live football is no
> longer a novelty, live sport is no longer a novelty and is competing
> with video game, YouTube and a host of streaming platforms for interest
> and that is precisly why your average football fan is going to watch the
> cream of the crop and not two random jobbers playing. People have better
> things to do with their time. If I have the opportunity to watch the
> best players, the best teams, playing state of the art football, why
> would I watch the primitive crap Celtic serve up?

I wasn't aware that mid-table English teams did play state of the art football, I see your point to some extent though. I'd have thought Celtic and Crvena Zvezda's history would make them more attractive though, and the hype and the money would make the English teams that never win anything less attractive.

[Mehdi]

On 07/04/2019 16꞉29, Mark wrote:

> Lots of teams qualify automatically for the group stage and get 4 points towards their countries UEFA coefficient just for turning up.

The coefficient is irrelevant to the smaller leagues. If you had 4 Dutch
or Belgian teams in the UCL, they'd still get flogged. Germany was
sending 4 teams for a while, it didn't help to establish them as major
players, the extra money was meaningless, the Italians eventually took
back 3rd place.

> It was just as relevant as the 1980s. The tournament was run fairly, with everyone starting in the same round and no bonus points just for turning up.

You need to get over your silly bonus points obsession, as if it means
anything. The gap between the top 4 and lesser leagues is a lot more
than 4 points, it's well over 30 points. You simply don't understand the
economics of this. Teams from the lesser leagues cannot compete because
their domestic TV rights deals are miniscule in comparison to the rights
fees of the EPL, Serie A, La Liga and the Bundesliga. That is where the
game was headed, with or without the changes in the UCL.
Commercialisation and Bosman killed the smaller leagues and there's
nothing remotely unfair in that.

> I don't see how the changes made any difference to hooliganism. As for poor finals, as far as I know none of the finals that Ajax in the 70s or Benfica in the 60s won were poor. And the finals that were played between 2 genuine champions in the late 1980s and the 1990s were better quality finals than when the runners-up of the rich leagues started reaching the finals from 1999 onwards. Red Star Belgrade may have only won on penalties in 1991, but they played good quality football.
>

Banning the English clubs and increased professionalism helped end
hooliganism. I gave you a ten year period of shitty finals, which
preceded the changes, you've had to go back to the 60s and 70s.

> They run the club game too. FIFA run the World Cup and the World Club Championship; UEFA run the European Championship and the Champions League and Europa League. They both run tournaments for clubs aswell as national teams.

FIFA do not run the club game. They have no power over the club game.
The CWC is a joke of a tournament. It meant more in it's earlier
incarnation. They can rebrand it the Universe Club Championship for the
difference it will make.

[Mehdi]

On 07/04/2019 16꞉58, Mark wrote:

> It's too early to write the South American teams off. It's only 6 years since Corinthians won the Club World Cup. Nobody was writing the Europeans off when they went 8 years without a World Championship from 1977-1984.

You keep ignoring the factors as to why South American teams are no
longer a threat, Bosman + money. That isn't going to change.

> Some fans think there's a need. This isn't baseball, where nobody outside the USA plays it. Football is a world game. Why doesn't it need a World Championship?

A tiny number of fans think there's a need. The majority don't and the
majority will determine what the TV networks and sponsors want to invest in.

> But the Champions League is exclusively dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western Europe just the same. So why isn't that redundant?

Because those rich leagues happen to be the most popular leagues in the
World, the leagues with the most supporters and most money flowing
through them. The explosion of the sports popularity is because of these
leagues, as much as it pains you to admit it.

[Mehdi]

On 07/04/2019 17꞉38, Mark wrote:

> I wasn't aware that mid-table English teams did play state of the art football, I see your point to some extent though. I'd have thought Celtic and Crvena Zvezda's history would make them more attractive though, and the hype and the money would make the English teams that never win anything less attractive.
>

History doesn't stand still. The majority of today's fans, who joined
the sport in the digital era, never saw either Celtic or Red Star win
the European Cup, their names mean little.

[Mark]

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 12:03:04 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 07/04/2019 16꞉29, Mark wrote:
>

>
> > It was just as relevant as the 1980s. The tournament was run fairly, with everyone starting in the same round and no bonus points just for turning up.
>
> You need to get over your silly bonus points obsession, as if it means
> anything. The gap between the top 4 and lesser leagues is a lot more
> than 4 points, it's well over 30 points.

It does mean something. The points have accumulated over the years, that's why it's over 30 points now.

>
> > I don't see how the changes made any difference to hooliganism. As for poor finals, as far as I know none of the finals that Ajax in the 70s or Benfica in the 60s won were poor. And the finals that were played between 2 genuine champions in the late 1980s and the 1990s were better quality finals than when the runners-up of the rich leagues started reaching the finals from 1999 onwards. Red Star Belgrade may have only won on penalties in 1991, but they played good quality football.
> >
>
> Banning the English clubs and increased professionalism helped end
> hooliganism. I gave you a ten year period of shitty finals, which
> preceded the changes, you've had to go back to the 60s and 70s.

And the late 80s and the 90s. Yes there's evidence that European football was at it's weakest ever in the late 70s and early 80s. Only 2 of the finals in that 10 year period were won by teams from outside the rich 5.

>
> > They run the club game too. FIFA run the World Cup and the World Club Championship; UEFA run the European Championship and the Champions League and Europa League. They both run tournaments for clubs aswell as national teams.
>
> FIFA do not run the club game. They have no power over the club game.
> The CWC is a joke of a tournament. It meant more in it's earlier
> incarnation. They can rebrand it the Universe Club Championship for the
> difference it will make.

I don't think there's much difference in the amount of power over the club game that FIFA has, and the power over it UEFA has. The only reason it meant more before FIFA created the official one was because it was less dominated by the rich 5. Even in the early days of the official Club World Cup, South America was still producing more World Champions than Europe.

[Mark]

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 12:09:16 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 07/04/2019 16꞉58, Mark wrote:
>
> > It's too early to write the South American teams off. It's only 6 years since Corinthians won the Club World Cup. Nobody was writing the Europeans off when they went 8 years without a World Championship from 1977-1984.
>
> You keep ignoring the factors as to why South American teams are no
> longer a threat, Bosman + money. That isn't going to change.

There's still a chance that South America or another continent could produce a great team capable of beating Europe's best. It's not going to happen every year, but why should they miss out just because it doesn't happen most years? Ecuador producing a team that can beat South America's best is rare, does that mean Liga de Quito should have been denied the chance to become Champions of South America in 2009?

>
> > Some fans think there's a need. This isn't baseball, where nobody outside the USA plays it. Football is a world game. Why doesn't it need a World Championship?
>
> A tiny number of fans think there's a need. The majority don't and the
> majority will determine what the TV networks and sponsors want to invest in.
>
> > But the Champions League is exclusively dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western Europe just the same. So why isn't that redundant?
>
> Because those rich leagues happen to be the most popular leagues in the
> World, the leagues with the most supporters and most money flowing
> through them. The explosion of the sports popularity is because of these
> leagues, as much as it pains you to admit it.

The same reason could be given to the question "Why isn't the Club World Cup redundant?"

And without the Club World Cup, isn't interest in the Champions League and the European domestic leagues going to be reduced outside of Europe?

[Mehdi]

On 08/04/2019 18꞉06, Mark wrote:

> It does mean something. The points have accumulated over the years,
> that's why it's over 30 points now.

Those points are accumulated over a 5 year period. Even without those
bonus points, the powerful leagues would still hold a huge advantage
over the lesser leagues because it's their domestic TV deals that give
them a massive financial advantage, that allow them to buy the best players.

> I don't think there's much difference in the amount of power over the
> club game that FIFA has, and the power over it UEFA has. The only
> reason it meant more before FIFA created the official one was because
> it was less dominated by the rich 5. Even in the early days of the
> official Club World Cup, South America was still producing more World
> Champions than Europe.

UEFA has considerably more power over the club game. They call all the
shots, as the recent argument between the two parties over the expanded
CWC shows. FIFA are simply trying to muscle in on UEFA's territory. All
they've done with the changes they've made to the CWC is devalue it
significantly.

[Mehdi]

On 08/04/2019 18꞉53, Mark wrote:

> There's still a chance that South America or another continent could produce a great team capable of beating Europe's best. It's not going to happen every year, but why should they miss out just because it doesn't happen most
> years? Ecuador producing a team that can beat South America's best is rare, does that mean Liga de Quito should have been denied the chance to become Champions of South America in 2009?

Again, why do you think there's a NEED for a Europe vs South America
contest? Your view is the minority view. The TV networks and sponsors
simply aren't interested in carrying the CWC because there's isn't a
demand for it. There is no longer any rivalry between South American and
Europe, Europe is absolutely the dominant force in the World game, at
both club level and international level and has been for over a decade.
The chances of that changing anytime soon appear to very slim given the
paucity of talent South American clubs are now producing.

> And without the Club World Cup, isn't interest in the Champions League and the European domestic leagues going to be reduced outside of Europe?

The most important international markets for European football are in
Asia, not South America and Asian fans couldn't care less about the CWC.
The South American markets are totally irrelevant to European football
because they're not lucrative. Football, like all pro sports, is a
business and businesses make their money by appealing to the masses.
Gridiron doesn't need a world championship, the NBC doesn't need a world
championship, nor does soccer. When the absolute cream of the crop are
concentrated in one championship, the other championships become redundant.

[Werner Pichler]

On Monday, 8 April 2019 12:06:04 UTC+2, Mark wrote:
> On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 12:03:04 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> > On 07/04/2019 16꞉29, Mark wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > It was just as relevant as the 1980s. The tournament was run fairly, with
> > > everyone starting in the same round and no bonus points just for turning
> > > up.
> >
> > You need to get over your silly bonus points obsession, as if it means
> > anything. The gap between the top 4 and lesser leagues is a lot more
> > than 4 points, it's well over 30 points.
>
> It does mean something. The points have accumulated over the years, that's
> why it's over 30 points now.

It's not as simple.

First of all, for the Big 4 (I'll exclude France for the moment) the maximum
'default' bonus they get for their guaranteed four Champions League spots is
16 points. That's between 10 (Spain) and 20 (Italy) percent of these countries'
point total. Not insignificant, but take away all these bonus points and the
big 4 would still be the big 4 just by virtue of winning most of their matches
and qualifying for the latter stages of the tournament.

Second, you continue to ignore the argument that the rationale for these bonus
points is the idea that you shouldn't be disadvantaged if you're not playing
qualifiers. The Austrian league (read: Salzburg, singlehandedly) has - perhaps,
it could still go wrong - secured three automatic spots in the group phases
(1 CL, 2 EL) next season, and I'm quite worried that our league isn't nearly
good enough to maintain that level without the 'cheap' points in the various
qualification rounds that make up about a third of our point total. The paltry
four points Salzburg would get for an automatic spot in the CL group phase
won't be nearly enough to make up for that loss. For reference, look at
Switzerland this season.

Third, you have to give UEFA credit for trying to balance things a bit by
making the Europa League just as valuable as results in the Champions League.
The four bonus points (i.e. two wins) for reaching the CL group phase don't look
nearly as much like preferential treatment when you consider that wins over
Rosenborg and Düdelingen earned Salzburg and Olympiacos just as many points as
Crvena Zvezda got for winning against Liverpool, or CSKA got for their victory
over Real Madrid.


Ciao,
Werner

[Bruce Scott]

On 2019-04-07, Mehdi <v2m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> History doesn't stand still. The majority of today's fans, who joined
> the sport in the digital era, never saw either Celtic or Red Star win
> the European Cup, their names mean little.

We old sacks will do well to remember this. Most fans today know
nothing from before 1990 if not later. I love the smiles I get
when bringing up matches from the 1970s and 80s :-)

--
ciao, Bruce

[Futbolmetrix]

On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 7:27:14 AM UTC-4, Mehdi wrote:
>
> The most important international markets for European football are in
> Asia, not South America and Asian fans couldn't care less about the CWC.

True, but puzzling. Why *aren't* Asian fans interested in their teams going up against the Barcas and Real Madrid, and prove that they are "on the map"?

D

[Mehdi]

On 08/04/2019 21꞉46, Futbolmetrix wrote:

> True, but puzzling. Why *aren't* Asian fans interested in their teams going up against the Barcas and Real Madrid, and prove that they are "on the map"?
>
> D

Football is a sport that was built on tribalism, primarily on city vs
city rivalries. You don't have that in Asian cultures. They're patriotic
but there's no sporting rivalry between cities. To your Asian (Chinese
and Indian Subcontinent fans), western sports aren't about cities or
even leagues, they're about foreign superstars. I believe things are
different in Japan, they already had an established Baseball league
before the J-league was launched so support is along city lines, from
what little I have read.

[Bruce Scott]

On 2019-04-09, Mehdi <v2m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Football is a sport that was built on tribalism, primarily on city vs
> city rivalries. You don't have that in Asian cultures. They're patriotic
> but there's no sporting rivalry between cities. To your Asian (Chinese
> and Indian Subcontinent fans), western sports aren't about cities or
> even leagues, they're about foreign superstars.

Very good point... fandom in China is even more remote than in the
US in the 1970s, since in the latter you had the immigrant populations
(like 1982 when Italy won the World Cup and there were parties in
every large us city).

> I believe things are
> different in Japan, they already had an established Baseball league
> before the J-league was launched so support is along city lines, from
> what little I have read.

Baseball is extreme in this, I don't know how football support is
there, though. In volleyball it is mostly company teams, like
semi-pro baseball in former times in the US.

I think the city-based thing is also a result of radio culture
(before that, newspapers), where you had local stations but (almost)
no national ones. This was the situation in the US pre-1960s.

--
ciao, Bruce

[Mark]

On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 12:11:18 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 08/04/2019 18꞉06, Mark wrote:
>
> > It does mean something. The points have accumulated over the years,
> > that's why it's over 30 points now.
>
> Those points are accumulated over a 5 year period. Even without those
> bonus points, the powerful leagues would still hold a huge advantage
> over the lesser leagues because it's their domestic TV deals that give
> them a massive financial advantage, that allow them to buy the best players.

Yes but the extra revenue from having an easier time getting to the later rounds and therefore attracting more TV money has accumulated over more than 5 years.

>
> > I don't think there's much difference in the amount of power over the
> > club game that FIFA has, and the power over it UEFA has. The only
> > reason it meant more before FIFA created the official one was because
> > it was less dominated by the rich 5. Even in the early days of the
> > official Club World Cup, South America was still producing more World
> > Champions than Europe.
>
> UEFA has considerably more power over the club game. They call all the
> shots, as the recent argument between the two parties over the expanded
> CWC shows. FIFA are simply trying to muscle in on UEFA's territory. All
> they've done with the changes they've made to the CWC is devalue it
> significantly.

UEFA run European Club football; FIFA run World Club football.

FIFA weren't trying to muscle in on UEFA's territory when they first introduced the Club World Cup. Football needs a World Championship that's open to teams from all over the world, not just Europe and South America. The introduction of the preliminary round where the Oceanian team has to play a team from the host country to qualify for the quarter-final of a 7 team tournament has possibly devalued it.

UEFA can't organize a Club World Cup. That's FIFA's responsibility.

I don't think UEFA do have much power actually. It's the rich European Football clubs that have the power. They don't make as much money from the Club World Cup as they do from the Champions League; that's why they're less keen on playing in the Club World Cup. They're more interested in money than football.

[Mark]

On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 12:27:14 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 08/04/2019 18꞉53, Mark wrote:
>
> > There's still a chance that South America or another continent could produce a great team capable of beating Europe's best. It's not going to happen every year, but why should they miss out just because it doesn't happen most
> > years? Ecuador producing a team that can beat South America's best is rare, does that mean Liga de Quito should have been denied the chance to become Champions of South America in 2009?
>
> Again, why do you think there's a NEED for a Europe vs South America
> contest? Your view is the minority view. The TV networks and sponsors
> simply aren't interested in carrying the CWC because there's isn't a
> demand for it. There is no longer any rivalry between South American and
> Europe, Europe is absolutely the dominant force in the World game, at
> both club level and international level and has been for over a decade.
> The chances of that changing anytime soon appear to very slim given the
> paucity of talent South American clubs are now producing.

Football needs a World Championship because football is a World game, and is played in 6 continents of the World. It makes football more interesting and more fun to have a Championship of each of those continents, and a Championship of the whole world. It gives teams a chance to test themselves against the very best teams in the world. The world's number 1 sport not having a World Championship would be a very bad thing.

Look at women's football in North America. The USA would possibly be the absolute dominant force in North American women's football. Does that mean that a Championship of North America for women's football clubs would be unnecessary?
>

[Mehdi]

On 10/04/2019 18꞉20, Mark wrote:

> Yes but the extra revenue from having an easier time getting to the later rounds and therefore attracting more TV money has accumulated over more than 5 years.

They have an easier time getting into the later rounds because they're
simply better and the UCL TV revenue is dwarfed by the domestic TV
rights. You keep blaming UEFA for something that isn't their 'fault'.
The UCL rewards the clubs that bring in the most money, as it should.
There's nothing unfair in that.

> FIFA weren't trying to muscle in on UEFA's territory when they first introduced the Club World Cup. Football needs a World Championship that's open to teams from all over the world, not just Europe and South America. The introduction of the preliminary round where the Oceanian team has to play a team from the host country to qualify for the quarter-final of a 7 team tournament has possibly devalued it.

FIFA doesn't need a world championship, they want one.

> UEFA can't organize a Club World Cup. That's FIFA's responsibility.

> I don't think UEFA do have much power actually. It's the rich European Football clubs that have the power. They don't make as much money from the Club World Cup as they do from the Champions League; that's why they're less keen on playing in the Club World Cup. They're more interested in money than football.

They have an easier time getting into the later rounds because they're
simply better and the UCL TV revenue is dwarfed by the domestic TV
rights. You keep blaming UEFA for something that isn't their 'fault'.
The UCL rewards the clubs that bring in the most money, as it should.
There's nothing unfair in that.

[Mehdi]

On 10/04/2019 18꞉50, Mark wrote:

> Football needs a World Championship because football is a World game, and is played in 6 continents of the World. It makes football more interesting and more fun to have a Championship of each of those continents, and a Championship of the whole world. It gives teams a chance to test themselves against the very best teams in the world. The world's number 1 sport not having a World Championship would be a very bad thing.

We know European teams are the best teams in the World, that's why
there's no need for a 'World' championship. Football is a universal game
in which the top European clubs are the most popular teams in all but
one of those continents. There is no demand from fans for a World
Championship because we know who would win, we know Europe has the best
teams and best players, which, for some reason, you have a hard time
accepting. If there was a CWC and the European clubs took it seriously,
they would smash the other teams. A fluke result here or there doesn't
change anything. You'd be lucky to see one non European Champion in a
decade and that's why the completion has no value.

> Look at women's football in North America. The USA would possibly be the absolute dominant force in North American women's football. Does that mean that a Championship of North America for women's football clubs would be unnecessary?

Of course it does. Do we need a championship for the British Isles?
Nope, England are the best team. Do we need a championship for Eastern
Europe? Nope, there's no demand. Do we need a championship for
Scandinavia? Nope, again, there's no real demand.

[Mark]

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 12:05:36 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 10/04/2019 18꞉20, Mark wrote:
>
> > Yes but the extra revenue from having an easier time getting to the later rounds and therefore attracting more TV money has accumulated over more than 5 years.
>
> They have an easier time getting into the later rounds because they're
> simply better and the UCL TV revenue is dwarfed by the domestic TV
> rights. You keep blaming UEFA for something that isn't their 'fault'.
> The UCL rewards the clubs that bring in the most money, as it should.
> There's nothing unfair in that.

They have an easier time getting to the later rounds because they start 3 rounds later than other teams and get 4 free points just for turning up, and because they're richer (partly) because of the extra revenue from having had these unfair advantages for years and years.

UEFA shouldn't be rewarding the clubs that bring in the most money. That in itself isn't what they should be rewarding the clubs for. They should be rewarding the clubs who win the most matches, which isn't necessarily the same teams.

>
> > FIFA weren't trying to muscle in on UEFA's territory when they first introduced the Club World Cup. Football needs a World Championship that's open to teams from all over the world, not just Europe and South America. The introduction of the preliminary round where the Oceanian team has to play a team from the host country to qualify for the quarter-final of a 7 team tournament has possibly devalued it.
>
> FIFA doesn't need a world championship, they want one.
>

FIFA run world football, including club football. If they organize a tournament and say it's an official World Championship, then it's an official and legitimate World Championship, unless there's an obvious reason why not such as clubs from 1 of the continents being excluded. Any club, from any country, from any continent can qualify for it, so it's a legitimate World Championship.

[Mark]

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 12:14:24 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 10/04/2019 18꞉50, Mark wrote:
>
> > Football needs a World Championship because football is a World game, and is played in 6 continents of the World. It makes football more interesting and more fun to have a Championship of each of those continents, and a Championship of the whole world. It gives teams a chance to test themselves against the very best teams in the world. The world's number 1 sport not having a World Championship would be a very bad thing.
>
> We know European teams are the best teams in the World, that's why
> there's no need for a 'World' championship. Football is a universal game
> in which the top European clubs are the most popular teams in all but
> one of those continents. There is no demand from fans for a World
> Championship because we know who would win, we know Europe has the best
> teams and best players, which, for some reason, you have a hard time
> accepting. If there was a CWC and the European clubs took it seriously,
> they would smash the other teams. A fluke result here or there doesn't
> change anything. You'd be lucky to see one non European Champion in a
> decade and that's why the completion has no value.

You're writing the non-Europeans off too early. Corinthians won the World Championship in 2012, and even Real Madrid, the best team Europe have produced this century, only won 1-0 against Gremio in 2017 and needed extra time to beat Kashima Antlers in 2016.

If, in another 20 years, there's still not been another non-European winner of the Club World Cup, you might have a point; but at the moment the Europeans are still genuinely struggling to prove their superiority on the pitch.

>
> > Look at women's football in North America. The USA would possibly be the absolute dominant force in North American women's football. Does that mean that a Championship of North America for women's football clubs would be unnecessary?
>
> Of course it does. Do we need a championship for the British Isles?
> Nope, England are the best team. Do we need a championship for Eastern
> Europe? Nope, there's no demand. Do we need a championship for
> Scandinavia? Nope, again, there's no real demand.

Then we don't need a Championship of Oceania because we know New Zealand are the best team; we don't need a Championship of Uruguay because we know the teams from Montevideo are the best teams; we don't need a Championship of Scotland because we know the teams from Glasgow are the best teams; we don't need a Championship of Germany because we know Bayern Munchen (and possibly Borussia Dortmund) are the best team.

Not to mention the fact that that logically implies that we don't need a Championship of Europe because we know that teams from the rich 5 are the best teams.

[Mehdi]

On 13/04/2019 16꞉51, Mark wrote:

> They have an easier time getting to the later rounds because they start 3 rounds later than other teams and get 4 free points just for turning up, and because they're richer (partly) because of the extra revenue from having had these unfair advantages for years and years.

Your bonus point argument is flawed. Their domestic TV deals make them
richer, without UCL recvenue they would still be in a postion to
comfortably outspend the others legaues and, again, there's nothing
unfair in that.

> UEFA shouldn't be rewarding the clubs that bring in the most money. That in itself isn't what they should be rewarding the clubs for. They should be rewarding the clubs who win the most matches, which isn't necessarily the same teams.

The clubs that bring in the most money are the most popular clubs, and
these clubs are winning clubs. Your argument doesn't make sense.

> FIFA run world football, including club football. If they organize a tournament and say it's an official World Championship, then it's an official and legitimate World Championship, unless there's an obvious reason why not such as clubs from 1 of the continents being excluded. Any club, from any country, from any continent can qualify for it, so it's a legitimate World Championship.
>

They don't run club football, they don't have remit. UEFA run club
football in Europe. Europe > ROTW in this sport, just as it is in say in
men's Tennis for example, which the Euros have dominated in over a
decade. The point of sport is competition, to see who is the best, in a
contest. You think it's unfair that some leagues have more money than
others and thus can buy better players and build better teams! That's a
silly stance to take. It isn't.

[Mehdi]

On 13/04/2019 17꞉27, Mark wrote:
>
> You're writing the non-Europeans off too early. Corinthians won the World Championship in 2012, and even Real Madrid, the best team Europe have produced this century, only won 1-0 against Gremio in 2017 and needed extra time to beat Kashima Antlers in 2016.
>
> If, in another 20 years, there's still not been another non-European winner of the Club World Cup, you might have a point; but at the moment the Europeans are still genuinely struggling to prove their superiority on the pitch.

Oh please, in a tournament in the middle of their domestic season, they
have to fly to God knows where and compete against alien teams. Real
Madrid struggled in 2017 and 2016? It doesn't really mean anything when
South American teams have sunk so low, they've even failed to make finals.

> Then we don't need a Championship of Oceania because we know New Zealand are the best team; we don't need a Championship of Uruguay because we know the teams from Montevideo are the best teams; we don't need a Championship of Scotland because we know the teams from Glasgow are the best teams; we don't need a Championship of Germany because we know Bayern Munchen (and possibly Borussia Dortmund) are the best team.

You're getting confused here. There is a demand for domestic
championships in hundreds of cities the world over. If there wasn't, no
one would turn up to watch and play, nor would there be stadiums. Each
league in each country has it's followers, has fans that keep that
league alive. They are self contained. They serve their purpose to
entertain fans, regardless of how much money they generate and
regardless of where they stand in the hierarchy of world football.

> Not to mention the fact that that logically implies that we don't
need > a Championship of Europe because we know that teams from the rich 5
> are the best teams.

There's no logic to your argument. You're complaining because some teams
are richer than others? Boo hoo. We need to know which TEAM is the best.
That's what's determined by playing the games. You have a problem with
the elite and if you have a problem with the elite, you don't understand
the concept of professional sports, you're stuck in some Olympic ideal.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2019-03-22, Mark <Pammie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 10:55:14 PM UTC, Jesper Lauridsen wrote:
>> On 2019-03-19, Mark wrote:
>> >
>> > You could say the same about the Champions League; that's become
>> > just another competition to crown a European Champion when everyone
>> > knows that there's no comparison in financial muscle between the
>> > rich 5 of Western Europe and the rest of Europe.
>>
>> The diffence is that there's no other tournament where Barcelona,
>> City, Juve etc battle it out.
>
> Are you saying it's OK to have a tournament that's dominated by
> teams from only 5 different countries and to call it the
> championship of a continent or the world as long as there aren't 2
> of them?

I'm saying that the Club World Cup is redundant. In its current format
the real achievement isn't winning the CWC - it's winning the CL. And
if you expand it would just be a rehash of the later stages of the CL.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2019-03-19, MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> On 2019-03-19 5:58, Mehdi wrote:
>>
>> The biggest factor is Bosman.
>
> You can't blame Bosman for everything. In the strict sense, the Bosman
> ruling and associated discussions were about two things
> 1) freedom of movement of out-of-contract players without compensation
> to their former team
> 2) freedom of movement of EU nationals to exercise their profession (in
> this case football), which made limits on foreigners in squads illegal,
> as long as those foreigners were EU nationals.
>
> There was not anything a priori in the above that would stop teams,
> leagues or governments from putting restrictions on numbers of non EU
> nationals on each team. Many leagues still did have restrictions for a
> number of years after the Bosman ruling, and maybe some still do.

When e.g. Real Madrid doesn't have to use foreigner spots on Courtois,
Varane, Kroos, Modric, Bale, Benzema, it opens up spots for
non-European players.

And at the same time it has concentrated top talent in the top teams
and the top leagues.

>> Personally of course, I'm delighted with the development. I'd long
>> argued that the European Cup winners are the best team in the World,
>
> This is kind of a hard argument to sustain in the face of evidence like
> Aston Villa 1982, Porto 2004, Liverpool 2005, Chelsea 2012 and so on.

What Aston Villa did 35 years isn't of much relevance to the world today.

Looking at the last 12 years, the CK winners have won the Club World
Cup 11 times, with one runnerup. That's a 23-1 record in the
individual matches, which is the kind of record the top tier has
against the third division in a domestic cup.

In the same time frame, the COMNEBOL representative has failed to even
make the final 4 times.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2019-04-10, Mark <Pammie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/04/2019 18:06, Mark wrote:
>>
>> > It does mean something. The points have accumulated over the years,
>> > that's why it's over 30 points now.

The automatic qualification for 4th placed teams have only been in
effect for one single season - this one. It will not have any impact
until the 20/21 season.

But anyway, let's assume it has been there forever.

The top 4 leagues each gain 5x(4x4/7) bonus points for their
ranking. That's 11.43 points. League #5 has 3 entrants = 10
points. League #6 has 2 = 6.67. Leagues #7 to #10 has 1 = 4 points.

Gap between #4 and #5 is 15 points - way more than the 1.43 due to
bonus points for direct entrants. Gap between #4 and #7 is 24 points -
again way way more than what the bonus points do.

(I'm ignoring the effect of potential extra spots for CL and EL
winners to keep it somewhat reasonable)

> Yes but the extra revenue from having an easier time getting to the
> later rounds and therefore attracting more TV money has accumulated
> over more than 5 years.

The bonus points doesn't help reaching the later rounds.

[Mark]

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 12:31:26 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 13/04/2019 16꞉51, Mark wrote:
>
> > They have an easier time getting to the later rounds because they start 3 rounds later than other teams and get 4 free points just for turning up, and because they're richer (partly) because of the extra revenue from having had these unfair advantages for years and years.
>
> Your bonus point argument is flawed. Their domestic TV deals make them
> richer, without UCL recvenue they would still be in a postion to
> comfortably outspend the others legaues and, again, there's nothing
> unfair in that.

That doesn't make allowing them to start 3 rounds later than other teams and giving them 4 extra points just for turning up fair. It's that that I'm saying is unfair, not the fact that they're richer.

>
> > UEFA shouldn't be rewarding the clubs that bring in the most money. That in itself isn't what they should be rewarding the clubs for. They should be rewarding the clubs who win the most matches, which isn't necessarily the same teams.
>
> The clubs that bring in the most money are the most popular clubs, and
> these clubs are winning clubs. Your argument doesn't make sense.

Are they being rewarded for winning or are they being rewarded for bringing in more money?

>
> > FIFA run world football, including club football. If they organize a tournament and say it's an official World Championship, then it's an official and legitimate World Championship, unless there's an obvious reason why not such as clubs from 1 of the continents being excluded. Any club, from any country, from any continent can qualify for it, so it's a legitimate World Championship.
> >
>
> They don't run club football, they don't have remit. UEFA run club
> football in Europe. Europe > ROTW in this sport, just as it is in say in
> men's Tennis for example, which the Euros have dominated in over a
> decade. The point of sport is competition, to see who is the best, in a
> contest. You think it's unfair that some leagues have more money than
> others and thus can buy better players and build better teams! That's a
> silly stance to take. It isn't.

FIFA do run club football. Who else could run the Club World Cup? I'm not saying it's unfair that some leagues have more money, I'm saying the Club World Cup is legitimate competition, to see who is the best, in a contest.

[Mark]

On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 12:44:04 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 13/04/2019 17꞉27, Mark wrote:
> >
> > You're writing the non-Europeans off too early. Corinthians won the World Championship in 2012, and even Real Madrid, the best team Europe have produced this century, only won 1-0 against Gremio in 2017 and needed extra time to beat Kashima Antlers in 2016.
> >
> > If, in another 20 years, there's still not been another non-European winner of the Club World Cup, you might have a point; but at the moment the Europeans are still genuinely struggling to prove their superiority on the pitch.
>
> Oh please, in a tournament in the middle of their domestic season, they
> have to fly to God knows where and compete against alien teams.

So do the teams from other continents. Nobody expects to play against teams that they've played 10 times in the last 2 years and know their game as well as they know their local rivals game, in a World Championship.

Real
> Madrid struggled in 2017 and 2016? It doesn't really mean anything when
> South American teams have sunk so low, they've even failed to make finals.

If South American teams have sunk so low, and the best team Europe has produced this century is still struggling to prove they're better than the best teams from outside Europe, then that proves my point. Imagine how much a relatively weak European Champion would struggle against a relatively strong South American Champion.

>
> > Then we don't need a Championship of Oceania because we know New Zealand are the best team; we don't need a Championship of Uruguay because we know the teams from Montevideo are the best teams; we don't need a Championship of Scotland because we know the teams from Glasgow are the best teams; we don't need a Championship of Germany because we know Bayern Munchen (and possibly Borussia Dortmund) are the best team.
>
> You're getting confused here. There is a demand for domestic
> championships in hundreds of cities the world over. If there wasn't, no
> one would turn up to watch and play, nor would there be stadiums. Each
> league in each country has it's followers, has fans that keep that
> league alive. They are self contained. They serve their purpose to
> entertain fans, regardless of how much money they generate and
> regardless of where they stand in the hierarchy of world football.

That still doesn't explain why we need a Championship of Oceania, but as for domestic championships I think I see your point.

>
> > Not to mention the fact that that logically implies that we don't
> need > a Championship of Europe because we know that teams from the rich 5
> > are the best teams.
>
> There's no logic to your argument. You're complaining because some teams
> are richer than others? Boo hoo. We need to know which TEAM is the best.
> That's what's determined by playing the games. You have a problem with
> the elite and if you have a problem with the elite, you don't understand
> the concept of professional sports, you're stuck in some Olympic ideal.

I'm using the logic of your argument to demonstrate that we don't need a Championship of Europe. The Champions League and the Club World Cup are both dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western Europe; so why do we need either of them?

[Mehdi]

On 15/04/2019 19꞉17, Mark wrote:

> That doesn't make allowing them to start 3 rounds later than other teams and giving them 4 extra points just for turning up fair. It's that that I'm saying is unfair, not the fact that they're richer.

If you think giving the big clubs a pass is a bad thing for smaller
clubs, what's the alternative? The alternative is Man City, Barcelona,
Bayern etc, etc thumping Celtic, Red Star, Brugge over two legs. That
doesn't benefit anyone. By guaranteeing the big leagues 16 spots, teams
from lesser leagues face much weaker opposition, the fact that 15 of the
32 teams in the group stages are teams from outside the top 4 leagues
suggests this method works, it suggests it's fair. Celtic were
eliminated by AEK Athens, who progressed to the group stages after then
beating Vidi. That's unfair? No, it isn't. You complain about money
without taking into account the current format guarantees millions to
smaller clubs precisely because they don't have to face clubs from the
major leagues in the qualifying rounds. Your criticism of UEFA is
totally without merit. They placate the big clubs, AS THEY SHOULD, and
open out a route to the group stage for smaller clubs. Again, with 15/32
teams in the group stages from smaller leagues, why exactly are you
complaining? The structure couldn't possibly be fairer. Far from
complaining about UEFA, they should be praised for ensuring teams from
outside the elite have a chance of competing in the lucrative group stages.

> Are they being rewarded for winning or are they being rewarded for bringing in more money?

Both.

> FIFA do run club football. Who else could run the Club World Cup? I'm not saying it's unfair that some leagues have more money, I'm saying the Club World Cup is legitimate competition, to see who is the best, in a contest.

FIFA have no influence over the structure of the major, European
leagues, none whatsoever nor do they have any influence over the
European Cup. FIFA run the World Cup and various youth tournaments, they
run CUP football. They do not run league football. If the CWC was
legitimate, FIFA wouldn't be trying so hard to change it's format and
fans would watch it in the numbers they watch the European Cup final or
World Cup final, they don't, that's why it's not legitimate.

[Mehdi]

On 15/04/2019 19꞉18, Mark wrote:

> If South American teams have sunk so low, and the best team Europe has produced this century is still struggling to prove they're better than the best teams from outside Europe, then that proves my point. Imagine how much a relatively weak European Champion would struggle against a relatively strong South American Champion.

There's no struggling. 9 wins in 10 years isn't struggling, it's
dominance. Selectively looking at a handful of results doesn't change
that, it's not as if the best European teams win every game 4-0.

> That still doesn't explain why we need a Championship of Oceania, but as for domestic championships I think I see your point.

WE don't need it. No one really cares.

> I'm using the logic of your argument to demonstrate that we don't need a Championship of Europe. The Champions League and the Club World Cup are both dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western Europe; so why do we need either of them?

My argument is there is proven demand for a Championship of Europe,
that's reflected by every metric - by fan interest, by clubs fighting to
enter the competition (let alone win it) and by the billions paid by TV
networks and sponsors. There is no such demand for the CWC, none. It
doesn't matter whether you think it's important, your view is the
minority view. You think there's a pressing need for South American
teams to show they can compete with Europe's best but there isn't,
there's no need because this is a question we already know the answer
to. European teams are better, much better and the chances of that
changing anything soon, short of a cataclysmic event akin to a 10 mile
asteroid hitting western Europe, isn't happening.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2019-04-15, Mark <Pammie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 12:44:04 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
>
> If South American teams have sunk so low, and the best team Europe
> has produced this century is still struggling to prove they're
> better than the best teams from outside Europe, then that proves my
> point.

But they aren't struggling.

> Imagine how much a relatively weak European Champion would struggle
> against a relatively strong South American Champion.

The season's Real Madrid has fired their manager twice, been knocked
out early in the CL by a much cheaper team and is irrelevant in the
league. That's as weak as you can get.

Still sleepwalked the CWC.

> I'm using the logic of your argument to demonstrate that we don't
> need a Championship of Europe. The Champions League and the Club
> World Cup are both dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western
> Europe; so why do we need either of them?

We don't know who is going to win the CL. Before the group stage, 538
rated 4 teams, from 3 different leagues, at 13% or 14% to win the
tournament, followed by 4 teams, from 4 different leagues, at 6%-8%.

For the CWC on the other hand, we have a pretty damn good idea who
will win it 6 months before the tournament even starts.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2019-04-01, Werner Pichler <wpic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 March 2019 11:05:50 UTC+2, Mark wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with going back to having the champions of each country battling
>> it out for the championship of Europe, and the 7th best and 10th best Teams
>> etc playing in the Europa League?
>
> It would render the European Cup irrelevant. The big teams would find other
> outlets to satisfy the worldwide desire for matches at the top level and take
> things out of UEFA's and into their own hands. At worst, we'd arrive at a
> situation like in Basketball where exactly this happened, with the so-called
> 'Champions League' languishing in the shadow of the club-run EuroLeague and
> EuroCup.

Are you implying that Bakken Bears isn't among Europe's elite???

[Mark]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 12:10:21 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 15/04/2019 19꞉17, Mark wrote:
>

> > Are they being rewarded for winning or are they being rewarded for bringing in more money?
>
> Both.

Then it's unfair. They should be rewarded purely for winning matches. Money should have nothing to do with it.

>
> > FIFA do run club football. Who else could run the Club World Cup? I'm not saying it's unfair that some leagues have more money, I'm saying the Club World Cup is legitimate competition, to see who is the best, in a contest.
>
> FIFA have no influence over the structure of the major, European
> leagues, none whatsoever nor do they have any influence over the
> European Cup. FIFA run the World Cup and various youth tournaments, they
> run CUP football. They do not run league football.

If the Club World Cup was played in a league basis, FIFA would be running league football. What difference does the fact that it's a knock-out tournament make?

If the CWC was
> legitimate, FIFA wouldn't be trying so hard to change it's format and
> fans would watch it in the numbers they watch the European Cup final or
> World Cup final, they don't, that's why it's not legitimate.

FIFA aren't trying particularly hard to change the format. They've made 1 proposal to change it.

[Mark]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 12:26:13 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> On 15/04/2019 19꞉18, Mark wrote:
>
> > If South American teams have sunk so low, and the best team Europe has produced this century is still struggling to prove they're better than the best teams from outside Europe, then that proves my point. Imagine how much a relatively weak European Champion would struggle against a relatively strong South American Champion.
>
> There's no struggling. 9 wins in 10 years isn't struggling, it's
> dominance. Selectively looking at a handful of results doesn't change
> that, it's not as if the best European teams win every game 4-0.

Then South America dominated from 1977-86. Nobody was writing the Europeans off back then.

>
> > That still doesn't explain why we need a Championship of Oceania, but as for domestic championships I think I see your point.
>
> WE don't need it. No one really cares.

I think a lot of people in Oceania would disagree with you.

>
> > I'm using the logic of your argument to demonstrate that we don't need a Championship of Europe. The Champions League and the Club World Cup are both dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western Europe; so why do we need either of them?
>
> My argument is there is proven demand for a Championship of Europe,
> that's reflected by every metric - by fan interest, by clubs fighting to
> enter the competition (let alone win it) and by the billions paid by TV
> networks and sponsors. There is no such demand for the CWC, none. It
> doesn't matter whether you think it's important, your view is the
> minority view. You think there's a pressing need for South American
> teams to show they can compete with Europe's best but there isn't,
> there's no need because this is a question we already know the answer
> to. European teams are better, much better and the chances of that
> changing anything soon, short of a cataclysmic event akin to a 10 mile
> asteroid hitting western Europe, isn't happening.

But we don't know that Europeans are much better than the rest of the world. The results of the Club World Cup Finals of 2005, 2006, 2012 and 2016 are strong evidence that the gap isn't that big.

[Mark]

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 11:44:36 PM UTC+1, Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

> On 2019-04-15, Mark wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 12:44:04 PM UTC+1, Mehdi wrote:
> >
> > If South American teams have sunk so low, and the best team Europe
> > has produced this century is still struggling to prove they're
> > better than the best teams from outside Europe, then that proves my
> > point.
>
> But they aren't struggling.

If not being able to beat Kashima Antlers in 90 minutes isn't struggling, I don't know what is.

>
> > Imagine how much a relatively weak European Champion would struggle
> > against a relatively strong South American Champion.
>
> The season's Real Madrid has fired their manager twice,

Nothing unusual for Real Madrid

been knocked
> out early in the CL by a much cheaper team

OK, but these things happen in a knock-out tournament, and look at how well Ajax have done in the CL since then

and is irrelevant in the
> league.

They've got a good chance of ending runner-up, and are almost certain of ending in the top 3. That's hardly irrelevant.
>
> Still sleepwalked the CWC.

That's an exaggeration. They won it more convincingly than they did in 2016 or 2017 but that's not saying much.

>
> > I'm using the logic of your argument to demonstrate that we don't
> > need a Championship of Europe. The Champions League and the Club
> > World Cup are both dominated by teams from the rich 5 of western
> > Europe; so why do we need either of them?
>
> We don't know who is going to win the CL. Before the group stage, 538
> rated 4 teams, from 3 different leagues, at 13% or 14% to win the
> tournament, followed by 4 teams, from 4 different leagues, at 6%-8%.
>
> For the CWC on the other hand, we have a pretty damn good idea who
> will win it 6 months before the tournament even starts.

Is that what you thought in 2012?

[Futbolmetrix]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 4:24:01 PM UTC+2, Mark wrote:
>
> But we don't know that Europeans are much better than the rest of the world. The results of the Club World Cup Finals of 2005, 2006, 2012 and 2016 are strong evidence that the gap isn't that big.

Mark, we were having these arguments on RSS back in the 1990s. Back then, you absolutely had a point, and many European fans mistakenly believed that European teams were far better than South American teams, despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary (or at least to a pretty balanced affair).

But now? The best argument you have is one and one match going to extra-time in the past 13 years? Seriously?

[Mehdi]

On 17/04/2019 22꞉10, Mark wrote:

> Then it's unfair. They should be rewarded purely for winning matches. Money should have nothing to do with it.

Here you go again, saying something is unfair when the opposite is the
case. Every team that qualifies for the group stages of the UCL, gets
guaranteed TV money and they get bonuses for winning. UEFA should hoard
the billions they take in from TV networks and not distribute it??!??!
If AEK Athens tank and lose every match, they still take in millions
from TV rights fees. How is that unfair? You keep complaining about the
financial disparity between the top leagues and the rest of Europe yet
here we have a system that guarantees representation outside of the top
4 leagues and guarantees those teams money! What on Earth are you
complaining about? You have an issue with globalisation and, for some
bizarre reason, blame UEFA for it!

> If the Club World Cup was played in a league basis, FIFA would be running league football. What difference does the fact that it's a knock-out tournament make?

FIFA do not have the remit to run a league competition involving
multiple leagues, they would need the support of the EPL, La Liga, Serie
A, Bundesliga etc etc. Those leagues could refuse, as they have done
before in fact, and there's not a thing FIFA could do about it.

> FIFA aren't trying particularly hard to change the format. They've made 1 proposal to change it.

They've made numerous changes over the years.

[Mehdi]

On 17/04/2019 22꞉23, Mark wrote:

> Then South America dominated from 1977-86. Nobody was writing the Europeans off back then.

Totally and utterly irrelevant in every way. What is it you don't
understand about the relative strengths of these two confederations
today? We've had 4 European winners of the WC in a row. That's
unprecedented. The last 3 U20 World Cups have been won by Europeans, you
have to go back to 2003 for the last South American winner of the U17
World Cup. While the top European nations continue to produce talent,
the well has dried up in South America, in Argentina and Brazil
especially. You have a hard time accepting what has been proven on the
field, European teams are superior to South American teams, at club
level and at international level.

> But we don't know that Europeans are much better than the rest of the world. The results of the Club World Cup Finals of 2005, 2006, 2012 and 2016 are strong evidence that the gap isn't that big.

Stop being naive. Of course we do. The best players are in Europe.
That's how this and pro sports work, generally speak, the teams with the
best players, with the most talented players, are the ones in the
running for major honours. The gap isn't that big? There's no gap,
there's a chasm.

[Mehdi]

On 17/04/2019 22꞉39, Mark wrote:

> Is that what you thought in 2012?

Oh wow. ONE win in 12 years.