Didn't Uefa already introduce that rule about home grown players? That will take effect in 2008 or whatever?
Buy on AliExpress.com
Platini : If I Were UEFA President... (23 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ahmed
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
I guess you have a valid point there Erik, and I suppose a lot of my argument is based on the assumption that all countries share the same passion for the game as each other - which is as you have mentioned correctly obviously fault.
However, I would like to point out that I do not in any way believe the competitoin should be strictly confined to the "champions" of each respective nations. The result would be a general drop in standards since for teams to be ultra competitive their domestic league should hit some "critical mass" point which the majority cannot satisfy. The point I want to make is that there is a fine balancing act between keeping the diversity within the league and whilst in doing so also ensuring that the standards of game is not sacrificed. Whilst it is quick to point out that the games such as Barca vs Chelsea are the ones which attract large proportion of the revenue, thus giving favorable impression to the idea that quality is the main driver of the growth of competition, I would like to state the diversity also plays critical role in success. Would the majority of CL fans in other part of Europe share the same enthusiasm if the entry is strictly forbidden to the "best teams" in Spain, Italia and England? I can only conjecture the answer to this question, and you are probably in a better position to answer than myself, but my guess is no. I always believe that the main success of CL is not in attracting hard-core fanbased such as myself and you, but capturing those people who doesnt have strictly have team they follow. And mass is attracted partly by the (1) accessibility of competition and (2) general quality of product on show. It is essentially the same problem faced by World Cup that tries to give every country possibility of participating and at the same put on the best show as possible.
In essence, there is inherent trade-off, at least in the short run, between the quality and diversity. My belief is that at this moment of time too much emphasis has been placed on quality and not on diversity. As a quick rule of thumb, most countries has about three times at best that can compete for the domestic championship and after the third team there is a large drop off in terms of standards. I wouldnt mind watching 2-2 classics such as Barca and Chelsea over and over again, but if somebody told me that Fiorentina vs Liverpool was on, then I would rather forgo the opportunity to watch this match and do somethingelse whilst letting vlakto and Fliakis shout their throat out cheering for the teams in their home league. Beside, if anything World Cup has shown is that, although there may be huge discrepancies between teams at the beginning, as long as poorer teams get more exposure they eventually catch up and make the tournament more competitive. I doubt that Ivory Coast could have given the almighty Dutch such good run for the money if in the earlier years teams like Cameroon or Nigeria were not given the chance to compete in the tournament.
I don't think it would be too much loss to the competition if teams like Liverpool, Chelsea, Depor/Osasuna/Sevilla forfit their place and we see instead Dinamo Zargreb, Fenebarche or even better Internacional.
However, I would like to point out that I do not in any way believe the competitoin should be strictly confined to the "champions" of each respective nations. The result would be a general drop in standards since for teams to be ultra competitive their domestic league should hit some "critical mass" point which the majority cannot satisfy. The point I want to make is that there is a fine balancing act between keeping the diversity within the league and whilst in doing so also ensuring that the standards of game is not sacrificed. Whilst it is quick to point out that the games such as Barca vs Chelsea are the ones which attract large proportion of the revenue, thus giving favorable impression to the idea that quality is the main driver of the growth of competition, I would like to state the diversity also plays critical role in success. Would the majority of CL fans in other part of Europe share the same enthusiasm if the entry is strictly forbidden to the "best teams" in Spain, Italia and England? I can only conjecture the answer to this question, and you are probably in a better position to answer than myself, but my guess is no. I always believe that the main success of CL is not in attracting hard-core fanbased such as myself and you, but capturing those people who doesnt have strictly have team they follow. And mass is attracted partly by the (1) accessibility of competition and (2) general quality of product on show. It is essentially the same problem faced by World Cup that tries to give every country possibility of participating and at the same put on the best show as possible.
In essence, there is inherent trade-off, at least in the short run, between the quality and diversity. My belief is that at this moment of time too much emphasis has been placed on quality and not on diversity. As a quick rule of thumb, most countries has about three times at best that can compete for the domestic championship and after the third team there is a large drop off in terms of standards. I wouldnt mind watching 2-2 classics such as Barca and Chelsea over and over again, but if somebody told me that Fiorentina vs Liverpool was on, then I would rather forgo the opportunity to watch this match and do somethingelse whilst letting vlakto and Fliakis shout their throat out cheering for the teams in their home league. Beside, if anything World Cup has shown is that, although there may be huge discrepancies between teams at the beginning, as long as poorer teams get more exposure they eventually catch up and make the tournament more competitive. I doubt that Ivory Coast could have given the almighty Dutch such good run for the money if in the earlier years teams like Cameroon or Nigeria were not given the chance to compete in the tournament.
I don't think it would be too much loss to the competition if teams like Liverpool, Chelsea, Depor/Osasuna/Sevilla forfit their place and we see instead Dinamo Zargreb, Fenebarche or even better Internacional.
No, it means from your club. At least that's the distinction I heard a few years ago when this was all over the news. A player who is home grown is one who played so and so many years for your club before turning 21 or something like that. So apparently, Vieira would qualify for this as a home grown player of Arsenal (or so it was said at the time).
Then, going by FM
, there's another category of home grown, which just means brought up by any club in the same country.
And you need so and so many of one kind, so and so many of the other kind.
So Messi is home grown by Barcelona, but if Real Madrid buy him, they can still say he is home grown of the second category.
Then, going by FM
, there's another category of home grown, which just means brought up by any club in the same country.And you need so and so many of one kind, so and so many of the other kind.
So Messi is home grown by Barcelona, but if Real Madrid buy him, they can still say he is home grown of the second category.
That's well put and an honest point but I only partially agree.
In case of the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA cup, which nation is allowed to send in which amount of teams is based on the coefficients rankings. This system has several built-in measures to make sure every country has a fair shot at sending in as many teams as possible.
1) A victory and a draw are awarded a certain amount of points. This is divided by the amount of teams a nation can send to Europe. In Holland's case, if a victory for PSV means 3,000 points, that number is divided by the amount of Dutch clubs in Europe (7). The outcome of that sum is added to the Eredivisie's coefficient. That means that this season, Romania has been outperforming Holland massively. Why? Because Romania can only send 3 clubs into Europe and is subsequently awarded more points for a victory. It means Romania can climb the rankings really fast if they focus their energy on improving only 1 or 2 clubs, whereas Holland needs to make sure it has at least 5 out of 7 clubs strong enough for serious competition. Click here for more information:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/
2) UEFA cup victories and draws are worth exactly as much as their CL equivalents. Again this is to the benefit of the smaller nations who obviously stand a better chance at winning in the UEFA cup than they do in the CL.
3) Qualifiers for said competitions are also counted and even get you bonus points if you qualify. It means that while Ajax and PSV are sitting about waiting for the draws, Romania already has Steaua and Dinamo earning points for playing qualifying matches. It means Holland (in contrast to Romania) starts with a deficit and have to win many, many more matches to catch up because the points are divided through factor seven.
With Eastern European clubs (most notably those from Romania, Russia and the Ukraine) on the rise, the coefficient rankings is set to explode. One lousy season could see a country drop from ranking #5 to ranking #15. Even Germany is incapable of staying above the mess at least for now. In my opinion it is only a matter of time until France will succumb to the struggle and since Ligue 1 forms the last bridge between the Great 3 and the rest of Europe, the current system provides for vastly sufficient loopholes to destroy the hegemony of England, Italy and Spain.
With that in mind, I personally belief the quality-diversity balance is very neatly organised by UEFA. And in a sneaky way because the rules make it's a gradual process. It has to be, or the G14 might breakaway. UEFA did well, they only have few options because they aren't as powerful as everyone thinks.
In case of the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA cup, which nation is allowed to send in which amount of teams is based on the coefficients rankings. This system has several built-in measures to make sure every country has a fair shot at sending in as many teams as possible.
1) A victory and a draw are awarded a certain amount of points. This is divided by the amount of teams a nation can send to Europe. In Holland's case, if a victory for PSV means 3,000 points, that number is divided by the amount of Dutch clubs in Europe (7). The outcome of that sum is added to the Eredivisie's coefficient. That means that this season, Romania has been outperforming Holland massively. Why? Because Romania can only send 3 clubs into Europe and is subsequently awarded more points for a victory. It means Romania can climb the rankings really fast if they focus their energy on improving only 1 or 2 clubs, whereas Holland needs to make sure it has at least 5 out of 7 clubs strong enough for serious competition. Click here for more information:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/
2) UEFA cup victories and draws are worth exactly as much as their CL equivalents. Again this is to the benefit of the smaller nations who obviously stand a better chance at winning in the UEFA cup than they do in the CL.
3) Qualifiers for said competitions are also counted and even get you bonus points if you qualify. It means that while Ajax and PSV are sitting about waiting for the draws, Romania already has Steaua and Dinamo earning points for playing qualifying matches. It means Holland (in contrast to Romania) starts with a deficit and have to win many, many more matches to catch up because the points are divided through factor seven.
With Eastern European clubs (most notably those from Romania, Russia and the Ukraine) on the rise, the coefficient rankings is set to explode. One lousy season could see a country drop from ranking #5 to ranking #15. Even Germany is incapable of staying above the mess at least for now. In my opinion it is only a matter of time until France will succumb to the struggle and since Ligue 1 forms the last bridge between the Great 3 and the rest of Europe, the current system provides for vastly sufficient loopholes to destroy the hegemony of England, Italy and Spain.
With that in mind, I personally belief the quality-diversity balance is very neatly organised by UEFA. And in a sneaky way because the rules make it's a gradual process. It has to be, or the G14 might breakaway. UEFA did well, they only have few options because they aren't as powerful as everyone thinks.
Football is the biggest sport in Ireland, followed by Gaelic football, hurling and rugby. In that order. Rugby's a minority sport, traditionally associated with the upper middle class and a few snobby private secondary schools. It's growing, but it's not a tap on football. We're as football mad as the Dutch, just with 1/3 the population and a domestic league that's lost the bulk of its potential support to English teams like Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leeds, Notts Forrest, etc. and to Glasgow Celtic since forever.
It was founded by an Irish monk, drawing players from the Irish immigrant community, to raise money for charity. The ties have stayed close ever since, with many an Irish player passing through their books. Thousands of Irish people travel to each of their home games. They still wear green and white, and you'll see tricolours and hear old Irish rebel songs song at their games.
I don't buy into it, but a lot of people do.
I don't buy into it, but a lot of people do.
I must say that was breath-taking analysis. Having went through your judgement more thoroughly, I succumb to your point. Your argument was based on facts not assertions - and hence you convinced me that the balance is pretty neat after all even if the system by which they assign point is somewhat arbitary.
Nonetheless, I still withhold the view that UEFA Champions League is only viable way to introduce global competiton where the best team in each respective continent can compete in a meaningful competition than the World Club Championship organized by FIFA. And for the reasons mentioned in the previous, I think other outsiders also have the legitimate right to participate in the tournament. From the wide perspectives, I don't really feel UEFA will hurt much if for instance Boca Juniors, River Plate, Sao Paulo or Internacional compete in the competition rather than very good but hardly excellent teams in Liverpool or Fiorentina.
But this is entirey a different matter and in so far as Europe is concerned you are totally right. High quality post.
Nonetheless, I still withhold the view that UEFA Champions League is only viable way to introduce global competiton where the best team in each respective continent can compete in a meaningful competition than the World Club Championship organized by FIFA. And for the reasons mentioned in the previous, I think other outsiders also have the legitimate right to participate in the tournament. From the wide perspectives, I don't really feel UEFA will hurt much if for instance Boca Juniors, River Plate, Sao Paulo or Internacional compete in the competition rather than very good but hardly excellent teams in Liverpool or Fiorentina.
But this is entirey a different matter and in so far as Europe is concerned you are totally right. High quality post.
Jun-hide said:
I must say that was breath-taking analysis. Having went through your judgement more thoroughly, I succumb to your point. Your argument was based on facts not assertions - and hence you convinced me that the balance is pretty neat after all even if the system by which they assign point is somewhat arbitary.
Nonetheless, I still withhold the view that UEFA Champions League is only viable way to introduce global competiton where the best team in each respective continent can compete in a meaningful competition than the World Club Championship organized by FIFA. And for the reasons mentioned in the previous, I think other outsiders also have the legitimate right to participate in the tournament. From the wide perspectives, I don't really feel UEFA will hurt much if for instance Boca Juniors, River Plate, Sao Paulo or Internacional compete in the competition rather than very good but hardly excellent teams in Liverpool or Fiorentina.
But this is entirey a different matter and in so far as Europe is concerned you are totally right. High quality post.
Nonetheless, I still withhold the view that UEFA Champions League is only viable way to introduce global competiton where the best team in each respective continent can compete in a meaningful competition than the World Club Championship organized by FIFA. And for the reasons mentioned in the previous, I think other outsiders also have the legitimate right to participate in the tournament. From the wide perspectives, I don't really feel UEFA will hurt much if for instance Boca Juniors, River Plate, Sao Paulo or Internacional compete in the competition rather than very good but hardly excellent teams in Liverpool or Fiorentina.
But this is entirey a different matter and in so far as Europe is concerned you are totally right. High quality post.
Might I ask what type of format you would give this new global championship? It's an interesting take.