Is it a fair game? (1 Viewer)

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,857
#1
This is an issue that I hope will spur a lot of people to give their opinion because it's such a broad subject. :)

The basic question is: is it a fair game? When your team wins, can you say that "we earned it"? Is the outcome of a game ever "fair"? Is it ever "unfair"? Let's have a look at the bigger picture for a moment. People will always argue about referee favoritism, about conspiracy theories and about dopring. But what do those things actually mean alongside all other factors.


1. Financial resources
First things first. Money is now a HUGE part of the sport that is soccer. Rarely has it been better demonstrated than Abrahimovic' takeover of Chelsea. This was a club in a lot of debt, the new caretaker steps in, all debts are cleared and they spend £100m on new transfers. So far. It is possible that Chelsea will one day become profitable but for now, it is assumed mr. A is running the club at a loss, just because he wants to. Elsewhere, a certain Mohammad Al Fayed spewed a lot of money into Fulham. They comfortably made the cut into the Premier League but so far that is the extent of their success. Chelsea, however, have started very well and could win honors come May. And who is keeping track of the astronomic spending by Inter that Moratti has funded? That's gotta be in the £1G region by now.. It's also well known that Berlu is has done a lot for Milan financially and at the bottom line, they're in the red every season. The situation might have been similar with the Agnellis but that is now history (someone correct me if I'm wrong), since we're in the stock exchange.

Essentially, these are all examples of big clubs getting bigger because they have resourceful owners. How is it ever possible for the small sides to compete with this? Is it even conceivable that Catania could compete with Inter with just a lot of hard work and talent? Does anyone believe that a Serie C club with decent management and heaps of player talent can make it to Serie A and finish in the top 3 within the next 10 years without financial resources greater than that of an average Serie C club? (Ok, bad example given Inter's self destructive nature but you get the idea. ;))


2. Financial reward
Juve get €50m+ for tv rights every season. We get the most presumably because we're the most desirable team to watch due to our significant fan base. Milan and Inter get ~10% less and the list goes on, with the Modena's at about €5-10m. This caused an uproar a while ago, with Sensi leading the chase for the "less fortunate", his club gets about €40m I think. How is it fair for one club to get 10 times the amount of another in the same division?

Then you have the CL, just by competing in the competition at any level, there is Uefa Swiss francs tied to that fact. In the early 90s, the Norwegian club Rosenborg was by no means a powerhouse but they dominated the domestic scene somewhat, at any rate they were drafted into the CL qualifying round. From that point on, a series of unprecedented and impressive performances granted them a pass into the group stage. Even more money from Uefa. For I think 8 straight years they qualified for the competition, that is at least making it to the group stage. In this period of time, a great coach, a group of determined players combined with shrewd management set the foundation for a dominance that should hold for decades. They have 12 straight league titles, every year they buy (even if they don't, they can) all the best players in the league, they bought a new stadium AND they have plenty of cash in a bank account for safe keeping. In the process, they have financed Norwegian soccer as a whole, they have gotten the FA more money from Uefa, they have funded a lot of clubs by buying their players.

Ok so that's one not really representative example of what CL cash can mean to a club, I think few other clubs have reaped the rewards to this dramatic extent. But the CL equals money for every club, and the further you go the more of it. If I remember correctly, there was a cool £27m in it for Juve last year. Making the CL is thus very important, both for the sporting challenge but even more for the financial reward. If a team like Arsenal can make the CL every year and never contend for the trophy (it's enough that they are in a position to qualify each year) and this goes on for years, doesn't that necessarily put them ahead of Newcastle?


Considering the above, how much does referee favoritism actually mean if a club can replace all their players at the season with better ones and hire a coach that has a long track record of success? Isn't that a lot less "fair" still? If Sparta Prague can make the 2nd round of the CL, isn't their performance worth a hell of a lot more than Real Madrid's? If Juve win a trophy, is it ever "fair", we're not exactly starting equal with all the other clubs...
 

dpforever

Prediction Game Champ 2003 & 2005
Jan 12, 2002
3,794
#3
Excellent post Martin !!


But I kind of disagree with the some of the points you brought up ..


Juve got paid more for TV rights because they are the Italian champions and not just because of the fan base .. Is it fair? Totally, since winning the league should always give you some rewards and those rewards include better financial distribution compared to runner-ups or even teams that finish in the 3rd or 4th positions in their respective leagues .. it's the same as any other organization, do well and you get rewarded with a bonus or promotion ..


I also think what Juve is performing in the transfer market is perfectly 'fair' .. we are the only club - along with Bologna - in Italy who are not in debts and we have recently refused the option of paying debts in an extended span of 10 years because we simply don't need to .. we abide to the rules and don't spend excessively .. But is it fair that a team like Roma - in deep financial crisis - spend millions on players like Chivu? Is it fair that Inter sign 16 players every season despite the now well-publicised difficulties? Is it fair that Madrid get their yearly debts written off and sign the world's best players? Is it fair that Barca sign the Ronaldinhos out there despite clearly not having the funds whereas Juve and other clubs only sign players under their budget ??


As for Chelsea, I think their case is an exception and should be treated differently .. Abramavich single handedly changed the face of football this summer .. now everyclub's fans will dream of an Abramovich to save their team and get the world's best players ..

Aigner said it perfectly, Ajax took years and years to build a strong team that could compete in Europe, whereas Chelsea built their empire within minutes of Abra's purchase of the club ..
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,538
#4
Ah, let me weigh in on this, If I may.

Being on the other side of the world, there is a vastly different approach to how sports and competitive balance is acheived, and it's something that is widely accepted here, because it gives supporters a chance to believe that their team can be successful.

There are certain rules that attempt to thwart the "Rich gets Richer" theory year in and year out. One is what's called a "Salary cap" which restricts how much teams can spend on player salaries. It's a rigid amount, that can change from year to year depending on the revenues that were generated by the enitre league. If your squad exceeds the salary cap, then they must release or trade players away in order to abide by the guidelines.

Another factor that I see that causes such a disparity is the method in which new talent is acquired. Basically, it boils down to whoever has the most money. Naturally, if player X is coveted by both Brescia and juve, then Juve will surely retain the players services, unless said player has a strong loyalty to Brescia and wants to play there.

That's the main problem that I see. If your a fan of Juve, Real, Milan, ManU................et al, this system works great, because you feel like you are shopping at the mall with a credit card that has an unlimited limit. However, for the small teams, what is the motivation, if they know they have no chance of winning anything.
They are relegated to being teams that are nothing more than half-way houses for the larger teams spare parts and underdeveloped talent.

Now, what I'm going to say is probably going to upset some of my fellow Juventini, or fans of the larger teams in Italy and Europe, but something's has to change. These smaller teams NEED to be given the opportunity to be able to compete, for the good of football in their respective leagues and around Europe.

These smaller teams need to be allowed to purchase players and be allowed to keep them and nurture them, not debvelop them to a certain point and then sell them off. This would give these smaller teams a chance in a couple of years, and put the onus on scouting and player development for these larger teams that have these schools and academies all over the world, instead of taking the easy way out and buying players whenever you feel like it.

I'm also not a very big fan of relegation, at least not in its current format. I feel for those teams that fight for years to scratch their way up to the 1st division, and then have a bad break or two and be demoted again the next year. I'd like to see a 2 year period for these teams, where you would take the combined points over the two seasons, and the ones with the lowest, will be demoted. This creates more competition for the lower squads, and it will also serve as a warning for the middle of the road squads, that you better not slip up, or you may be unexpectedly demoted.

What this will also do is create more revenue, not just for the smaller teams, but for the larger ones as well. If i'm a juve fan, and the opnly ticket I can get is for Lecce, I would most likely go to that match if Lecce was a competitive squad, than the Lecce in its current state. I'm sure that 10-15 thousand others would share that same sentiment.

Increased Ticket Sales=Increased revenue=Increased income for all of the teams in the leauge=more resources to be invested into player development.

This may be alittle difficult for some to understand, and I would be more than happy to explain it on a more detailed basis, because here in the States, there are rules on payroll and player development/acquisitions that help to provide a more level playing field, whcih generate more fan interest.

The last thing that I would like to touch on, is this silly "cap-tied" rule, that I've been hearing about, and that martin recently confirmed that my belief on what it is is correct.

I don't like it, it doesn't make sense, and it hurts teams a lot more than it helps. Now, i'm not talking about teams that are in the CL, I'm talking aobut the teams that are either not in a cup, or recently eliminated.

Case in point- Lazio.

They were, unfortunately, eliminated not just from CL play, but from UEFA cup play as well. One would assume that, given their financial situation, that maybe selling some of its better players would help them. However, because they are "cup-tied", chances are that they can't sell them.

If I were Moggi, and if i were after Stam and Oddo, why would I pay dollar-for-dollar for them, If they could only help me in half of my matches? That rule must go.

Unfortunately, I don't see FIFA, UEFA, or whomever, doing anything to make any of these types of changes, because I would assume that they feel everything is going smoothly. Football is the #1 sport, and in some cases the ONLY sport, that generates large revenue in countries around the world, and putting in a system for competitive balance would be a short term hinderance, but a long term benefit for the sport.

Now as a Juve fan, it may not be something that we would want to see. Trust me, when some of these guidelines were put in place on sports that i love here (American Football, Basketball), I hated it at first, because i knew that it would adversely effect my teams that i love. In the long run, though, it was for the benefit of the leagues, and they are multi-billion dollar leagues now, and every team has money, which can only help.

That's my 2 cents. i will now field questions from the audience.




You, over there in the low cut top and short mini-skirt, what is your question?..........:devil:
 
OP
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,857
#5
I think there is one measure you left out, Serge. Or maybe you didn't and I failed to take notice again :D

The draft. The crop of college players is a very valuable resource. The best performing clubs get the worst pick in the draft. The bottom clubs (you gotta wonder how the Clippers never did anything, they should have the first pick every year :D) get the best new players, they get *the* best college player. So maybe next year they do a little better, add another good player, thou perhaps not the top rated. A few years later they might be among the top half in the league. It's not perfect, the weakest clubs probably never reach the top but it's a means to even the gap between the best and the worst. It would probably prevent the Fiorentina scenario. But it would not be straightforward to apply to a multi-division league.
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,538
#6
++ [ originally posted by Alex ] ++
I think there is one measure you left out, Serge. Or maybe you didn't and I failed to take notice again :D

The draft. The crop of college players is a very valuable resource. The best performing clubs get the worst pick in the draft. The bottom clubs (you gotta wonder how the Clippers never did anything, they should have the first pick every year :D) get the best new players, they get *the* best college player. So maybe next year they do a little better, add another good player, thou perhaps not the top rated. A few years later they might be among the top half in the league. It's not perfect, the weakest clubs probably never reach the top but it's a means to even the gap between the best and the worst. It would probably prevent the Fiorentina scenario. But it would not be straightforward to apply to a multi-division league.

I left it out, but I did so on purpose.


The talent pool is much too large, and unless you want to restrict drafting players to Italian players to italian teams, English Players to English teams, then it would never work. Could you imagine how long a worldwide draft would take. It would take weeks. Besides, there are too many civisions in each country, unless you want to make the 3rd or lower divisions into a minor league team for the big boys.

The only suggestion I could make is that you conduct a draft like that, have a developmental system for each team, and severly restrict the number of foreign players on each team. At least it will give the teams a little more of a nationalized flavor to them.
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,538
#7
Something else I forgot about.


Let's assume that there was a worldwide draft, and lets say that

Sampdoria (Serie A) has 20 points
Man. City (EPL) has 20 points
Sporting (PSL) has 20 points
and
Bayern(Bundesliga) has 20 points



How do you determine who would pick ahead of whom?

Especially when they don't play against one another.
 

Hydde

Duke NUKEM
Mar 6, 2003
36,658
#8
Well alex.. i dont know why you did this thread... as u explained it evything in the first post.


Answer: If it is unffair?? eell, taking it by one side of teh coin.... yes it is.
There will be aleays people with money who will make the difference like abramovich. In the same way, juventus received support from fiat, and Milan from berlusconi.

I know what u are talking bout... but welll... in think that we can do anything about it.
 
Aug 1, 2003
17,678
#10
1. the money issue (abramovich etc)
IMO it is so very very not fair. abramovich has successfully converted me into a chelski hater.

2. juve's tv rights etc
IMO its fair. we earned it.

well, thats all :angel:
 

Roverbhoy

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,840
#11
Looking at the money side of things it's now more obvious than ever that the teams from the unsexy leauges will very rarely be able to compete with those of the top four of five.

For example, Celtic (sorry but it's the team I know best) got less than 5 mill euros from normal TV rights...Juve got 50 mill euros...how can we compete with those kind of resources?

The quality of talent, both Italian and foreign, that you and the other major leauges can attract is therefore truly awesome...can we get some of your spare change please?
 

NEDVED

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
3,921
#12
i think its totally unfair....

i mean when juve earn 50 million, and ancona earn 5 million, how can ancona improve to fight for the title, this causes consecutive seasons to be like a routine, the strong teams are title fighters and the weak teams struggle to stay for all of their life...this is not fair at all, i think money should be divided equally among leaue teams in order to have a financial base so that they can buy good players and improve....

its dectatorism....
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,538
#13
I don't think its a dictatorhip, per se, but it's a system that has been in place for nearly 80 years (seriously, how many scudettos have Lecce and Ancona won?), and I can't see the powers that be doing anything to change it, because it seems like the ownership committees of these smaller teams seem resigned to their fate.

It would be fun to see different teams posing a challenge for a title every year. Obviously, the large teams will still be in the thick of things for a title, but I would love to see a juve-empoli match have significant meaning between the two teams involved, not just be a significant match for Juve alone.

Alas, this would require thinking outside the proverbial box, and we know how often THAT happens.
 
Aug 1, 2003
17,678
#14
juve EARNED their tv rights, its not easy being champions of Italy. but on a more abramovich-note, THAT I could not comprehend. What, now Chelski could win the CL just because some mindless billionaire buys their club? hmph :mad:
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,538
#15
Would the majority of you who like the system the way it is feel the same way if we were all supporters of a lower division club?
 
Sep 28, 2002
13,975
#17
++ [ originally posted by USA Juventini ] ++
Ah, let me weigh in on this, If I may.

Being on the other side of the world, there is a vastly different approach to how sports and competitive balance is acheived, and it's something that is widely accepted here, because it gives supporters a chance to believe that their team can be successful.

There are certain rules that attempt to thwart the "Rich gets Richer" theory year in and year out. One is what's called a "Salary cap" which restricts how much teams can spend on player salaries. It's a rigid amount, that can change from year to year depending on the revenues that were generated by the enitre league. If your squad exceeds the salary cap, then they must release or trade players away in order to abide by the guidelines.

Another factor that I see that causes such a disparity is the method in which new talent is acquired. Basically, it boils down to whoever has the most money. Naturally, if player X is coveted by both Brescia and juve, then Juve will surely retain the players services, unless said player has a strong loyalty to Brescia and wants to play there.

That's the main problem that I see. If your a fan of Juve, Real, Milan, ManU................et al, this system works great, because you feel like you are shopping at the mall with a credit card that has an unlimited limit. However, for the small teams, what is the motivation, if they know they have no chance of winning anything.
They are relegated to being teams that are nothing more than half-way houses for the larger teams spare parts and underdeveloped talent.

Now, what I'm going to say is probably going to upset some of my fellow Juventini, or fans of the larger teams in Italy and Europe, but something's has to change. These smaller teams NEED to be given the opportunity to be able to compete, for the good of football in their respective leagues and around Europe.

These smaller teams need to be allowed to purchase players and be allowed to keep them and nurture them, not debvelop them to a certain point and then sell them off. This would give these smaller teams a chance in a couple of years, and put the onus on scouting and player development for these larger teams that have these schools and academies all over the world, instead of taking the easy way out and buying players whenever you feel like it.

I'm also not a very big fan of relegation, at least not in its current format. I feel for those teams that fight for years to scratch their way up to the 1st division, and then have a bad break or two and be demoted again the next year. I'd like to see a 2 year period for these teams, where you would take the combined points over the two seasons, and the ones with the lowest, will be demoted. This creates more competition for the lower squads, and it will also serve as a warning for the middle of the road squads, that you better not slip up, or you may be unexpectedly demoted.

What this will also do is create more revenue, not just for the smaller teams, but for the larger ones as well. If i'm a juve fan, and the opnly ticket I can get is for Lecce, I would most likely go to that match if Lecce was a competitive squad, than the Lecce in its current state. I'm sure that 10-15 thousand others would share that same sentiment.

Increased Ticket Sales=Increased revenue=Increased income for all of the teams in the leauge=more resources to be invested into player development.

This may be alittle difficult for some to understand, and I would be more than happy to explain it on a more detailed basis, because here in the States, there are rules on payroll and player development/acquisitions that help to provide a more level playing field, whcih generate more fan interest.

The last thing that I would like to touch on, is this silly "cap-tied" rule, that I've been hearing about, and that martin recently confirmed that my belief on what it is is correct.

I don't like it, it doesn't make sense, and it hurts teams a lot more than it helps. Now, i'm not talking about teams that are in the CL, I'm talking aobut the teams that are either not in a cup, or recently eliminated.

Case in point- Lazio.

They were, unfortunately, eliminated not just from CL play, but from UEFA cup play as well. One would assume that, given their financial situation, that maybe selling some of its better players would help them. However, because they are "cup-tied", chances are that they can't sell them.

If I were Moggi, and if i were after Stam and Oddo, why would I pay dollar-for-dollar for them, If they could only help me in half of my matches? That rule must go.

Unfortunately, I don't see FIFA, UEFA, or whomever, doing anything to make any of these types of changes, because I would assume that they feel everything is going smoothly. Football is the #1 sport, and in some cases the ONLY sport, that generates large revenue in countries around the world, and putting in a system for competitive balance would be a short term hinderance, but a long term benefit for the sport.

Now as a Juve fan, it may not be something that we would want to see. Trust me, when some of these guidelines were put in place on sports that i love here (American Football, Basketball), I hated it at first, because i knew that it would adversely effect my teams that i love. In the long run, though, it was for the benefit of the leagues, and they are multi-billion dollar leagues now, and every team has money, which can only help.

That's my 2 cents. i will now field questions from the audience.




You, over there in the low cut top and short mini-skirt, what is your question?..........:devil:

ok, i'll try to give my 2 cents about your 2 cents.

salary cap. this rule would be very helpful in european football. imagine, abramovich leaves, chelsea dont have mobey to pay their megestars ang go bankrupt. some owners do not take into consideration that the players they sign for millions may not bring titles in their first year and after failing to get to champions league and losing ~4-5m clubs get into bog trouble. if that rule was implemented clubs would act more resonable.

about smaller clubs keeping their promising youngsters. my opinion also includes draft system. example: brescia and juve want to sign the same player. juve are champions, brescia are relegation threatened. who will sign for them? those youngsters may come from youth systems or whatever but you cant force them to stay if they can go where they are paid better or where they feel more prestigeous to play. why draft system would not work. because, europe has over 40 countries with number of leagues in each of them. for draft system to work there needs to be one league which has to be closed, i mean no rotation of clubs. second thing, when can player be eligible to be drafted? theres no college system and so on. some start professional careers in their 20 and emerge as secent players, while others are professionals from 16. and another difference from american system. here youngsters are signed as kids and may go on to succeed at the club. like raul in real madrid. i america, those kids play for their school, college and then may be signed by nba or cba club. players are not grown by clubs as it is here. there american system just cant work here. from general point of view that system would be great, but it will never happen. ok, i'm freddy adu, inter and juve want to sign me, why should i sign for bari? nothing can force players to stay at smaller clubs therefore all good wishes go to hell, all good players go to big teams, all the money go to bis team, and all wanna-be good teams go bankrupt.
 
Sep 28, 2002
13,975
#18
++ [ originally posted by €lke ] ++
pfffffffffff such long posts :p Don't want to read them all :p

Tooooooo lazy :p

so do not post in here. it's posts like these that make good threads go off topic.


"ooh, these long posts are soooo boring. i cant read them"
"yEaH, Me ToO"
"ooooh, hi, how are you"
"gOoD, how aRe YoU? do YoU like GiGi' AsS?


:groan:
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,538
#19
I know, Fli.


That's why I didn't mention the draft system in my post.

What should happen, is that each of these teams should start up academies, and develop their own home-grown players, and be given a chance to keep them. Sometimes, it's not about the money, its about a chance to get significant playing time and exposure at a young age, and a cahnce to be a part of a winning foundation for years to come.

If not, then the same old routine will hapeen OVER and OVER again.


Like I said, I don't think that this will ever happen, becuase of owner apathy and reactionary instead of pro-active Football Federations.
 
Sep 28, 2002
13,975
#20
and serge, i got a question. how all young players in nba when drafted by small teams sign for them. ie. lebron always wanted to play for knicks. cavs draft him. he refuse to go with them and wait till he is called by NY. is that possible?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)