Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: Gerula Date: 27-07-2006, 05:59 Edited by: Gerula at: 27-07-2006, 06:02	How many teams should the first one have? The second? Third? In 5 to 10 years we will get there. It would be interesting to read opinions from different corners of Europe. Fair play!

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: kurt Date: 27-07-2006, 08:04	i hope we never get there if we get there, than is for me the end of the football,football will only be for the rich club, rich wel get richer, very fast tv-rights in all countrys without topteams will decrease a lot, the bridge between the clubs will be enormous

Author: kurt
Date: 27-07-2006, 08:10

in the future i see this :

belgium and netherlands a jointventure
austria and switzerland a jointventure
scandanavian league
.....

and to devide the champions league spots and uefacup spots per country, there are easy solutions

1) make competition with the teams of the two countries
2) keep the points
3) in the second phase the competition with only clubs of the same ranking, so you have a ranking per country

this as opposite power against the big five

Author: kurt
Date: 27-07-2006, 08:19

jointleague

e little explanation

1) each country 12 teams, eacht team plays each other once, so 23 games

2) points gained are kept

3) in second phase, teams of the same country plays each other once, so another 11 games, ranking per country

4) so you have 34 games and each country has his own ranking

austria and switzerland can already start

the problem in the other countries, would be to go from 18 teams to 12 teams.

Author: ferdi
Date: 27-07-2006, 08:58

If there is only one top league for Belgium and the Netherlands, or for Austria and Switzerland, then you don't need seperate ranking for each country any more. Those leagues are still much smaller than the leagues of the big countries, so you can treat them as one for ranking purposes, i. e. 8th place for (Belgium and Netherland) would mean 2 entries for CL and 4 entries for UC (which could be 3+4 place of the united league + Dutch cup winner + Belgium cup winner).

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: Forza-AZ Date: 27-07-2006, 11:02	@ferdi That will meen Belgium/Netherlands will lose 4 spots. We now have 6 + 4 and would fall down to 6 (and maybe even 4, as a avarage over the last 5 years of Belgium/Netherlands joint might move us outside the top 8).

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: Forza-AZ Date: 27-07-2006, 11:05	@kurt I don't like leagues where you only play some teams once. This will result in having different programs for different clubs. If you have a joint league you should just make it of 18 or 20 clubs with everybody playing each other twice. You can just make 3 tables: a joint one to determine the champion and relegation and 2 tables of the 2 countries which will determine the European spots.

Author: ferdi
Date: 27-07-2006, 11:20

Forza-AZ wrote:

{i>That will meen Belgium/Netherlands will lose 4 spots. We now have 6 + 4 and would fall down to 6 (and maybe even 4, as a avarage over the last 5 years of Belgium/Netherlands joint might move us outside the top 8).{/i>

If you calculate a theoretical average about the last years, maybe. But one would expect that the joint league would be stronger than each of the two separate leagues are now, so it would sure be a candidate for the top 8 leagues, and why not for the top 6?

And also I expect that in future, after the next bigger revision of the system in 2008, there will be a general tendency to more spots for the top leagues, and either less spots or more qualification rounds for the minnows. So if the NL/B-league could establish as a permanent top-8-country, they wouldn't lose compared to the case where both separate countries would miss the top-8. (Of course as long as the Netherlands are strong enough to keep their own spot in the top-8, they might feel that there is no urgent need for a joined league.)

Author: panda
Date: 27-07-2006, 12:16

So consensus is- joint leagues can relatively easily exist for neighbour-countries where the existing league has not too many teams.

It depends on uefa's position to joint-leagues too, doesn't it? Were they opposed in the past?

An existing big league is sure to defend its position against amalgamation.

A true Euro league runs up against all the problems we have discussed a number of times (promotion-relegation, football rests on local loyalties). But I agree, many people think, esp with power of G14, it is going that way.

Author: exile
Date: 27-07-2006, 12:30

What opponents of the European League don't seem to appreciate is that we have a situation now where "big" teams are able to dominate European football by virtue of being in the top 3 leagues. This guarantees them

- lots of domestic TV money
- lions share of CL TV money (based on national TV market, not Europe-wide market)
- favourable treatment in the CL draw

A positive feedback mechanism has developed which squeezes out ambitious teams in other countries (Lyon, Ajax, Porto)

A true European League would be much fairer. How it could fit in with domestic football is another question. The likes of Ajax, Celtic etc would be happy to ditch the domestic league - but Arsenal, Man U etc
would not like to have to choose between the Premiership and a European League.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 27-07-2006, 12:32	I am very interested in these discussions as there are a few east europe countries where football is dying or is on a very low level indeed. Joint leagues can be a way to increase strength of the competitions which would bring more sponsor money, TV rights, spectators etc. Either that or professional football will almost cease to exist in those countries. I do not see any other way.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III.
Author: Giuseppe Date: 27-07-2006, 12:37	From my long discussion about the idea of European leagues, I came to the conclusion it could never work... maybe if a small number of countries of roughly the same level (and of a medium or lower level) would decide to make a joint league, that might work. But a league on a grand European level isn't a very good idea.

Author: kurt
Date: 27-07-2006, 12:37
Edited by: kurt
at: 27-07-2006, 12:44

to Forza-AZ

off course, a jointleague is more fair and easier with 20 teams, BUT
then the netherlands should deny even more teams, 8 instead of 6

i am 100 % certain the topteams in netherlans do not like to play the numbers 15-16-17-18 in the Netherlands, they would certainly go for the jointleague if they can keep teams like, vitesse, utrecht,....

i truly think that the netherlands would go for a jointleague if they can keep 12- 14 teams, not if they lose 10 teams.

And uefa has said yes to a jointleague in the past,in détail belgium-netherlands and has said NO for a euroleague.

I do not understand that austria and switzerland have no jointleague, they have each a league with 10 teams.
Their tv-rights would be greater then seperated, the topteams have more topgames and they can as Forza-AZ said, make three tables for pointing out champions league spots and uefaspots

is here anybody from austria or swiss ??????
what do the population think of a jointleague over there ?

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: kurt Date: 27-07-2006, 12:53	to Giuseppe i totally agree with you, and i am also affraid with many lawsuits, how do you start with a european league ? 3 teams of big five and the rest ? which three teams from that country, it will never work, who will be the man who decides which teams start in european league 1 , the G 14 ? then other teams can go to court.

Author: Tomo1s4
Date: 27-07-2006, 13:02

I dont see joint leagues as the future of the football, i belive it will countinue to be national leagues and popularity of joint leagues wont be high. Example for this is Royal League (scandinavia), clubs play this only for sponsor money and avarage crowd on stadions is very low compared to their domestic league. Maybe there will be some other results elsewhere but there are no future in those leagues

Author: panda
Date: 27-07-2006, 13:03

OK, so 2 lines of thought.

@exile
very interesting point -
1)does the 'positive feedback mechanism' mean the top 3 will keep their position 'for ever?'

But how would judge Porto - they won the UC, then the CL. Isn't that success enough? It's certainly more than an English club has managed recently.

2) A Euro league benefits sub-top countries, not top?

@others
neighbour-leagues would allow the regenration of football in smaller countries + not have the geographical / loyalty difficulties of playing lots of matches against distant / no historical connection countries. So there's no argument against neighbour-leagues so long as we can factor in the interests of existing memebrs of the constituent leagues.

Author: hejazia
Date: 27-07-2006, 13:04

I am kurt i can tell that on the swiss side the idea of a joint league is a no starter. They discussed the feasability of it like 5 years ago the project was dropped due to lack of interest. Dont forget that in switzerland there are three language zones. The swiss french would rather play in france, the swiss italians in italy, and the swiss germans are more interested in playing in the german bundesliga than in austria, so there is no real interest.

Author: panda
Date: 27-07-2006, 13:12

re: austria - swiss; scandinavia

OK, so here is nice intellectual concept, no theoretical drawback.

But it fails totally because in real life people are driven by something completely different.

Maybe these sorts of ideas also appeal to us on a really pan-European forum i.e. to improve formats. But most football fans have more 'traditional' or 'custom-based' loyalties. Eurocups are 'my team versus the foreign team' or 'team of my country versus team of other country.' Whatever the format, concpet is REALLY simple us v other.

So- create a non-national league that is an elegant idea- but people don't identify with it.

Author: kurt
Date: 27-07-2006, 13:37
Edited by: kurt
at: 27-07-2006, 13:45

probably panda

but a jointleague will come not by the fans, but on demand of the clubs, this for one mainreason, more tv-rights, more topgames, more shirtsponsoring, more fans, bigger stadions, so MONEY

and you must be honest, how many clubs have debts ? how many licence problems were there in belgium and netherlands, a lot

I still believe in a jointleague with belgium and netherlans,but only with each 12 or 14 teams, never with each 10 teams.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: STK Date: 27-07-2006, 13:51	I don't know what the future will hold, but what i would like to see is: Euro League 1,2,3,4,5,6 ... each 20 teams. Each year 10 promoting (except EL 1) and 10 relegating. No teams limit per country. Every domestic championship still playing like an inferior football level, and winners of this domestic championship playing play-offs for 10 spots availabe in the last euro league.

Author: isidromv
Date: 27-07-2006, 14:03

I think joint leagues will be created in the near future, like for example Ned/Bel, Scandinavia, Rom-Bul?, Aut/Swi, Balcan region, ex-USSR republics (excluding Russia), even Spain/Portugal/Andorra.

They will be the top level of a pyramid system, with national and regional subdivisions below. There can be a minimum quota for each country or just the normal promotion/relegation rules.

National cups would remain as they are now.

The only things that needs to be defined is the qualification to European Cups, but I think it is not a major issue.

Someone may argue that the next step is to put an European league on top of the system, but I don't think this will work.

Author: STK
Date: 27-07-2006, 14:25

On which criterium do you think that 2 countries will decide to create a such joint league?

Honestly i can't visualise this happening. For me there is:

1) continental football or at least a regional competition with serious coverage meaning: Est Europe, West Europe, North, South.

or

2) just national football.

Why to see a Romanian-Bulgarian league, and who will choose Bulgaria? The romanai FAs president? LOL. The football is for fans, if the fans don't enjoy it anymore then good-bye.

Author: isidromv
Date: 27-07-2006, 15:03

These leagues will be creted to have more competitive leagues instead of a few teams dominating every year. This will make these teams grow and fight with top 5 team in Europe competitions.

And the fans will support them, why shouldn't they, your team will play against the other big teams in your country (as it does now) and with the bigger teams in your neighbour country instead of weak teams from the same country.

Maybe it would not work in Rom/Bul, but why not in Aut/Sui or Ned/Bel?

Author: phunkee
Date: 27-07-2006, 15:04

In scandinavia (Norway, Denmark and Sweden) the top4 teams in the national leagues qualifies for the Royal League. The Royal League doesn't replace the national leagues so it is not excatly as suggested here, but if we can draw any experience out of the Royal League it is that it will take very long time before the national leagues is replaced by international leagues.

Even in scandinavia with a lot of common history, basically the same language and culture the Royal League has been a total failure. Both match attendance and TV-ratings are so low that the Royal League may be history after just 2 or 3 seasons(season 3 starts after the swedish and norwegian leagues are finished in november).

Based on my experience with the Royal League my conclusion is that the national leagues have a very strong possition in european football and will still be the most important tournament in the next ten years.

Author: panda
Date: 27-07-2006, 15:17

Yes, I think the critical point made by STK and others is - How does it actually come about?'

Look at the EU, and its previous names the EEC, EC etc. In many cases, countries joined the EU because their government put heavy pressure on them in the vote. Generally, the people who already had more trans-national lives wanted to join and get the advantages, the people with more local loyalties voted no. (E.g. in Switzerland, these were a majority).

Although football admin /governance bodies like uefa, fa, figc, even G14 exist, they are very different from national governments. To get enough people to agree that a non-national system is better, abandoning traditional structures, will be very hard.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: isidromv Date: 27-07-2006, 15:24	But Royal League is played during the winter break, and the teams do not use all their strength. If it would be played during the normal season and with the European spots in place, it would be much more interesting for teams and fans.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: kurt Date: 27-07-2006, 15:31	scandanavian league is extra hard,because it are three countries. A joint league can only be if you have / are : 1) neighbours 2) equal size, more or less 3) equal level,clubs. more or less 4) superior clubs in both countries who are fed up with playing against little clubs in their own country

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: exile Date: 27-07-2006, 15:37	But how would judge Porto - they won the UC, then the CL. Isn't that success enough? It's certainly more than an English club has managed recently. And then look what happened. Lost their coach and best players, lost in round of 16 2004-5, knocked out of the CL by a very poor Rangers team in 2005-6. It's the fate of Porto which suggests to me that teams outside the big 3 cannot

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: isidromv Date: 27-07-2006, 15:41	It should be 2 or at most 3 countries as mentioned by kurt, plus a few minnows whith few or no teams in the first level. An example of these minnows is Liechtenstein in the Austria/Switzerland joint league (Liechtenstein already has a joint league with Switzerland) or Luxembourg in Netherlands/Belgium.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: panda Date: 27-07-2006, 16:03	@exile I would welcome more opinions on this. You're probably right that no other assoc's clubs can CONSISTENTLY attract the combination of players coach and financing. But if I were a Porto fan, I think I'd be really happy for some years to come.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 27-07-2006, 16:16

The initiative for such a league should come from national FAs which would have to work out the datails and then UEFA should go along with it.

I like Forzas idea of forming national subtables to determine Eurospots.

So lets say that Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary should form a local league.As Serbia and Bulgaria have 5 spots and Hungary 4 the league should have at least 14 clubs. That means that league should have 18 teams,6 per country to ensure that lowest placed team of each country does not get eurospot and also prevents that relegated team has an Eurospot.

3 teams should be relegated and 3 national champions promoted. But it should be prevented that too many teams of a country drop out because that country could lose its Eurospots even if undeservedly considering eurocups results. So perhaps lowest placed teams from each country should drop out regardless of overall position.

When you get into it there are some tricky questions. But nothing unsolvable if good will exists (and interest)

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: exile Date: 27-07-2006, 16:32	The regional league sounds fine but has problems. Who would Portugal merge with? What about Scotland, doesn't really have a neighbour of similar standard. Greece to merge with Turkey? Somehow I think not!

Author: isidromv
Date: 27-07-2006, 16:45
Edited by: isidromv
at: 27-07-2006, 16:46

Relative to the European competitions, I think UEFA should create a league ranking, replacing the contry ranking, and assign spots to each league according to this ranking.
Each country has an extra spot for the cup winner or runner-up.

Based on current system, it should be something like this:
Top 4: 4CL, 2UC (as it is now for top 3)
5-8 : 3CL, 3UC
9-12: 2CL, 4UC
.
.
.

But I would prefer a different system:
A CL spot for each league winner.
A CL spot for each Cup winner, if it is also the league winner then this spot is vacant (UEFA can manage some vacant places easily). Each country will have at least a team in CL.
Some other CL spots allocated to the top leagues (to be defined by UEFA).
UC spots allocated also to the leagues.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: panda Date: 27-07-2006, 17:23	If you amalgamate leagues, the original members will want to protect the country allocations of Euro places. as ignjat63 says, in questions of promotion + relegation there are problems about how many from each country, unless you have a total amalgamation, where you could end up with many from one country and few from the other /others in a particular division.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 27-07-2006, 18:55

I really don't believe in a Euro League replacing national leagues. I strongly doubt that fans would like their local 'little' derby replaced by a game versus an average team of another country.

A a possible Benelux league. Kurt, presumably belgian (yes?) is right to underline all strong links between these 2 countries and such a regional league is making sense from a pure intellectual perspective. Let's admit that the 2 FA's agree on everything and a ready to launch such a league. I have a question to all of our Dutch and Belgian friends: how do you react ? are you happy with such a project ? would you support it ?

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: kurt Date: 27-07-2006, 19:02	to lyonnais in belgium and netherlands the teams number 15-18 are very little clubs, and with debts,so not many people are going to miss them if belgium and netherlands go together ,it can only work if they keep a lot of teams, each 12 or 14, the the identity is kept

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: Lyonnais Date: 27-07-2006, 19:08	do you mean a 24 to 28-team league ? what would be the benefit of such merger ? to remove the 4 weakest clubs of each league ? is not more simple to move from a 18-team to a 14-team national league rather than creating such a big-bang ? what about the cup ? still national or regional ? or mixed (like it used to be in the former Czechcoslovakia) ?

Author: Serge
Date: 27-07-2006, 19:13

There are leagues that have just 1 or 2 competitive clubs and others are on the edge of banckrupcy and present no interest. Moldova is among them... Countries of this type should joint with better neighbours, like for us Romania, though Sheriff is more likely to join Ukrainian League... I think Croatia and Serbia would be likely to joint, a League between Dinamo Zagreb, Crvena Zvezda and Partizan... But I am not sure about friendship between Serbia and Croatia ...

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 27-07-2006, 19:26 Edited by: ignjat63 at: 27-07-2006, 19:28	Serge, if at some point Serbia introduces financial criteria in our pro football it will most likely cease to exist. There would probably be no other pro teams then red star and partizan. I wonder if our Romanian or Bulgarian neighbours (panda, that guy would probably pronounce it niggabooz ) would let us join their league. I am only half joking

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: exile Date: 27-07-2006, 19:28	Ignoring my input I see! I say again - there are many countries for which a regional league would not work - Portugal, Scotland, Greece, Turkey - it is NOT a general solution for Europe.

Author: kurt
Date: 27-07-2006, 22:26

to Lyonnais

imagine two counries, each 12 teams, for example belgium and netherlands, or more easy austria and swiss

first fhase, they play each other once ? you make balanced pairs of the clubs, for example club brugge and anderlecht is a pair and so on, so if you have club brugge at home then you have to travel to anderlecht

then you have a more or less fair competition with 24 teams, 23 games
you keep the points
then in second phase, all teams of the same country play each once, so another 11 games, so total 34 games

what do you win ? a lot more tv-rights, a lot more shirtsponsoring a lot more topgames, bigger stadions, and so on

with each 14 teams, still possible, then you have 27 games in first phase, 13 games in next phase, total of 40 .

the cup must stay in each country, but so organised that there are not many games involved

Ideal would be for netherlands and belgium,each 12 teams, then you have at least 20 good teams, who all can play in uefacup and get to the group stages

Author: kurt
Date: 27-07-2006, 22:32

to exile

i totally agree with you, i only see it possible, with belgium and netherlands, they have also organised euro 2000 together

the same with austria and swiss, also organising the next one

the scandanivian leagues also possible, but very hard with 3 countries, but they have alle leagues with less teams then the average 18

then maybey possible in the former chechoslovakije

scotland, greece, portugal, the big five, turkey, they have no possible jointventures

if belgium and netherlands go together then they will definitely would become number six in europe, after the big five.

are there people of the netherlands here? what do you think of each 12 teams ?

Author: Gerula
Date: 28-07-2006, 09:00

I said 5 to 10 years, if the European leagues are going to be organized from top to bottom. Bottom to top, the natural course, would take longer. Some of you are talking about joint leagues on a regional basis. This might be an intermediary step, but –basically- if you prove it for regional leagues, you prove it for Euro leagues. It’s only a matter of time.

In a century or so, Europe is going to look different from what we are used with. More and more “gray” areas, based on mixed marriages, freedom of travel, and job opportunities, will take the place of the “old” local cultures. They will absorb and melt the cultures in contact. In time, the gray areas will touch and emerge in “next gray” areas and so on, until the European Nation will replace the old countries. I did not mention the speed of info, which will hurry the process. (Look at us, using English, on a Dutch forum, from hundreds or thousands of kilometers away.) Championships and other things will follow. As I said, it’s only a matter of time.

All the best!

PS It makes me laugh hearing about people that fight globalization. Come on! Globalization did not start yesterday, nor is starting today, and certainly will not start tomorrow. Globalization did start with the first handshake of two human beings that decided to join their efforts for defense or food seeking.

Author: panda
Date: 28-07-2006, 11:33

@gerula

Yes- the evolution of football and of europeanisation / globalisation are of course linked. All I feel is that it will be interesting how things go - in some parts of Europe, there has been change for hundreds of years, yet still strong local identity. On the other hand, as you say, there was never so much change as now, and never so fast.

@exile

I don't want to ignore your input! I agree Scotland is in a really difficult position. By geography, England is much stronger, the other home nations much weaker. Nothing else seems possible. In Scotland, two clubs are historically strong, it seems really hard to make evenone more strong. As you say, it is really sad that this situation makes Rangers and Celtic disadvanatged in their quest to be among Europe's super clubs, when they have so many supporters and so much past success.
OK- suppose they made you dictator of the SFA. WHat would you try to do?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 28-07-2006, 11:48

I suppose the future of eurofootball structure-wise will solely depend on what option brings most money. If UEFA calculates that Euroleagues will bring more money than the present format then we will have euroleagues.

And money is earned almost only through west european market so UEFA will not do anything for the smaller countries of West europe or for the east. I only hope that UEFA will allow regional leagues as a consolation for the outsiders.

Author: bert.kassies
Date: 28-07-2006, 11:49

@Gerula

I agree with your remarks on globalisation. And, whether we like it or not, that will influence European football. In the long run I would even encourage a single pyramid system for European football. But why should it not evolve into completely independent commercial leagues with some elite clubs? Just as in some USA sports. Not that I like that, but I think it is a serious option.

BTW, I don't consider this forum to be Dutch. But that only underlines your remarks on globalisation

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 28-07-2006, 11:54	bert, if I understood you correctly, do you mean that G18 will (or should) leave UEFA (and perhaps their domestic competitions) and form an elite competition of their own?

Author: panda
Date: 28-07-2006, 11:58
Edited by: panda
at: 28-07-2006, 12:06

You know what? The elite league can work only if patterns of support go that way too. If in many countries people support clubs not of their locality but of the elite. So they care if Barca wins, or Milan or whoever.

Now, we know CHILDREN often do this - that they support teams that are winning a lot. Also it is said- but this can be more fickle, because it is not based on locality of supporting the same club as your dad. In other words, they support the club through good times BUT NOT BAD TIMES. Who knows what will happen with these patterns? All I can say is, I hope it will be interesting, not depressing. (For example, I can see that in SOME parts of Eastern Europe, the main recent effects are the flight of players to richer countries and therefore a big decline in strength).

Author: ignjat63
Date: 28-07-2006, 12:07

panda, the maim problem of many eastern countries is that they are on verge of survival. sponsors are not interested in giving money, TV-money is small, number of spectators also. The only decent money a club can earn is by selling players. So they can buy players cheap and sell more expensive or sell kids from team's own school. However you look at it the teams are in the constant position of a drowning man gasping for air. Any minute he can drown. Thats what happened to Olimpija Ljubljana. Luckily, the state is forgiving to the teams' financial situation so far.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 28-07-2006, 18:47

Only one topic thread but it seems like many different "opinion threads" to follow.

It might change, possibly within the time frame Gerula suggests, but for now I perceive any Eurowide league system as a nice "fantasy" to discuss on threads like this.

If it ever does happen my main hope - though probably a forlorn one -is that everyone has at least a theoretical chance to reach the top league (whether this be top in a Euroleague pyramid) or top in any regional structure. Any "closed shop" league I would hate.

Over the next years though I think any "combined league" will be stand-alone affairs - to suit the requirements of the countries involved, not part of a wider picture.

To take Austria-Switzerland and or Netherlands-Belgium. Taking Kurt's numbers of 12 teams per country it actually seems far more sensible to me to play the first half of the season as a pure domestic league - 12 teams play each other home and away once so 22 games. Then in the second half of the season the top 8 from each country combines but you play only the other 8 teams - so another 16 fixtures making 38 in all.

That said although I see that system possibly working for Austria-Switzerland where the individual leagues appear more even and the dominate teams fluctuate, to me it doesn't really fit Netherlands-Belgium. The only reason to involve so many clubs there is to protect the majority of mid-ranking teams. I assume that's Kurt's objective - and a fair enough view to have but to me not very realistic. If teams like PSV are going to end up with a bunch of fixtures against teams like Zulte-Waregem and Lierse they may as well stay closer to home. Ditto fixtures like Anderlecht v Groningen & Twente. The idea of any combined league will be to significantly strengthen the appeal of the overall fixture list for the teams at the top level (both financially & for the fans).

Exile mentioned Scotland and the "Atlantic League" was an idea mooted some years back that seems to have drifted away. A league consisting of (for example): Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Anderlecht, Club Brugge, Standard Liege, Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, Porto, Benfica, Sporting + either one or two other teams from each of the 4 countries to me has more appeal both commercially & to the fans.

Author: bert.kassies
Date: 28-07-2006, 19:05

@ignjat63

No, I do not mean that G18 will (or should) leave UEFA. I don't know what will happen on short term. You need a crystal ball for such predictions.

I mean that in the long run (Gerula talks about a century or so) we will have a different Europe, and different structures in European football. Given that perspective I hope the current European Cups will evolve into an open European pyramid of leagues. And not into closed leagues with only invited elite clubs.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 28-07-2006, 19:37	thanks in about a century or so, with present climate changes, football will be played only in Russia, Canada and Scandinavia

Author: Gerula
Date: 29-07-2006, 09:16

According to the principle “the winner takes it all”, the successful clubs will “collect” the losers’ fans. Those clubs are not going to be as poor as they are today. They are going to close the gap with the “big guns”. I will give you an example. I won’t consider my team, Steaua, a team that has many supporters in Eastern Europe –Red Star, Sparta Praga, Dinamo Kiev, CSKA Sofia, Dinamo Zagreb, Panathinaikos or Galatasaray have, too- I will take Ajax as an example. If my team wouldn’t play in the European Superleague, then I would be an Ajax fan and like me many Eastern Europeans would do the same. (It’s about the poor, but brilliant!) This way, Ajax would have a huge market for its products and would get closer, financially, to teams like ManU, Real, or Barca. Why wouldn’t I care for Chelsea, for example? Because, compared to Ajax, Chelsea is an empty bag.

All the best!

PS If we take a look at the beginnings, when the “championship” was between streets, we can see frustrated folks when a county championship started, and then we can see their kids being frustrated when their team didn’t qualify for a national championship. It is our turn, now. After all, it is nothing new under the sun.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: Malko Date: 29-07-2006, 17:14	whom will we get in European league 1. The 3 best from Italy, Spain, England The 2 best fraom france, germany And champions from portugal, Holland, and so on, followin the UEFA-Ranking Table.....

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: kurt Date: 29-07-2006, 17:17	who are the three best and two best in these countries ? who will be the judge ?

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: STK Date: 29-07-2006, 17:20	@Malko, sorry man i do not agree with using this criterium. Kill me. You may as well use it along with a Euro Western League wihout that to concern me. But when you used just "Euro League" i do not agree. Don't tell me that "Euro League" is already a taken and "All rights reserved...", becaue i do not belive you.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 29-07-2006, 19:08 Edited by: ignjat63 at: 29-07-2006, 19:09	STK, sorry. If there ever is an All Europe league it will consist mostly of G18 or some other West europe teams. All rights reserved, I am afraid.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III.
Author: MalcolmW Date: 29-07-2006, 19:27	a G18 plus some other western clubs cannot be an "All Europe League". Call it "MacDonalds League", "Coca Cola League" or whatever, but not something it plainly isn't.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 29-07-2006, 19:30	MalcolmW, we now have Champions' League which it plainly is not. The principle of using Mickey Mouse names is already invented.

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III.
Author: dragonaute_auxerrois Date: 30-07-2006, 03:34	and I want to add that the real name is "Ligue des Champions" and was used at the begining (in 1993) because a Frenc guy invented it. And since 5 or 6 years all people tell him "Champion's League" even in France, Belgium and Switzerland... Ligue des Champions was a real football competition... Champion's League is becoming a only money-prize tournament...

Re: What about having European Leagues (I,II, III...)?
Author: Joost Date: 31-07-2006, 17:29 Edited by: Joost at: 31-07-2006, 17:32	I don't know about joint leagues. I've read more than once officials and people saying that if we merge with Belgium the competition loses appeal because they are way behind in terms of infrastructure (stadiums), spectators, budget and organization. And that football is about 'local business' also. Anyway, 12-14 teams from each country would be impossible.

Author: Gerula
Date: 31-07-2006, 22:51

They should be open leagues. We have to start from somewhere, with a fair “election”, but after that the best teams should be given the opportunity to join the best possible league that they qualify for, with no “blockings” due to their nationality. I wouldn’t mind to see only Italian, French, Spanish, or English teams in the European leagues, if they deserve it. That might be for a while. The others have to adapt and respond with quality, not with politics.

Fair play!