Why football is facing major change, despite 'toxicity' of Project Big Picture plan

[davieG]

Started this as a new topic because this idea is not going to disappear!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55131356

 

When Premier League chief executive Richard Masters addressed a parliamentary hearing on 10 November, he delivered a line all English football could agree on, despite the fierce opposition that followed Project Big Picture's unexpected unveiling a month before.

"Change is coming."

Masters was talking about the situation in Europe, where negotiations around the expansion of Uefa's club competitions have been taking place for 17 months now.

However, if England's so-called 'big six' clubs have their way, that "change" will be far more extensive than what appears set to happen on the continent - an expanded format for all European club competitions, including the Champions League group stage.

An 18-team Premier League, no more EFL Cup or Community Shield, B teams, the scrapping of FA Cup replays. All these were mentioned within the Project Big Picture proposals, which became public ahead of schedule at the beginning of October when they were leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

"Everything is up for discussion. Nothing is off the table," Football Association chairman Greg Clarke told the same Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee, exactly 27 minutes before he came out with the words that consigned his tenure to the bin.

These options are all controversial. But most contentious of all, in a document that laid out plans to address the massive funding gap between the Premier League and the rest of English football, was the demand for voting power to be concentrated in the hands of a minority of clubs.

Following the widespread criticism that met its public release, it might have appeared to some observers as if the proposed changes in Project Big Picture had been scrapped.

As we will see, this is not the case. The story is far from over.

This is the messy reality now facing elite English football, where unity and compromise are in short supply, during a financial crisis threatening the wider game.

To understand how we got here, and where we are headed next, we need to wind back to 2019. Our starting point is in the south Mediterranean.

Over two days of talks in Malta, in June 2019, it became clear the writing was on the wall. The status quo could not last.

European Clubs' Association members from 48 countries had met to discuss their issues with the continent's competition structures.

Several men in particular had arrived in a hurry. Five representatives from England's 'big six' left a Premier League meeting in Yorkshire early to jump on a private plane and head straight to Malta.

The sight of Tottenham's Daniel Levy, Chelsea's Bruce Buck, Manchester City's Ferran Soriano, Ed Woodward of Manchester United and Arsenal's Vinai Venkatesham arriving en masse showed they meant business. Liverpool chief executive Peter Moore had not been in Yorkshire and travelled independently on Ryanair.

The proposals being discussed - and favoured by a large majority - would mean more European games. That would mean more money for each participant in an expanded Champions League.

The Premier League had made its feelings known the day before. 'More Europe' was definitely not to its liking. "We believe the proposals would be detrimental to domestic leagues across the continent," a statement read.

Nonetheless, those present understood what was in the air. On leaving the meeting, a senior English club executive came out with the line that Masters was to repeat 15 months later: "Change is coming whether we like it or not. We have to work with it, not against it."

Various ideas have been mooted, on European expansion. Four groups of eight teams, six groups of six, a 36-team group phase where each team plays 10 different opponents. Even a repeat of last season's 'Super Eight' knockout tournament. This would be replicated across the Champions League, the Europa League and Uefa's new competition to be launched in June 2021, the Europa Conference League.

This expansion is aimed at increasing broadcasting revenues - at a time when England's have started to dip. It is also trying to address concerns shared by some of Europe's most historic clubs, over being left behind because they do not compete in the continent's five richest leagues, with the Premier League at its head.

Liverpool's Moore reported back to owner John Henry, Woodward did the same with Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer. By the time Uefa's next club tournament broadcasting contract begins in 2024, they all realised, clubs were going to be asked to play more European matches on spare dates that - in England's congested calendar - simply do not exist.

Henry had known this problem was brewing. And he believed the Premier League's voting structure would work against what he saw as the solution. With decisions requiring a two-thirds majority, he felt there were 14 clubs working against the 'big six'.

 

 

Between them, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham are England's richest and best-known clubs. They have most of the top players. They are the teams TV subscribers worldwide want to see at home. Yet they cannot drive the Premier League for their own objectives. Reaching agreement is a frustrating process, as with the return of five substitutes, which City's Pep Guardiola and Liverpool's Jurgen Klopp are desperate for, but others, including Aston Villa manager Dean Smith, reject.

From a wider perspective, the 'six' feel commercial decisions are repeatedly taken on a short-term basis, which restricts their ability to grow their income and compete with the likes of Netflix in an expanding digital media world.

In their view, the voting structure gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of clubs who may not even be in the league in 12 months' time and whose financial outlook is framed by what happens now, not in 10 years.

Occasionally, breakaways have been threatened - around Project Big Picture a mass move into the Championship was mentioned - but have never gone anywhere. In the short term, it is likely that without ex-FA chairman Clarke's involvement earlier this year, Henry, Glazer and the rest would have kept grumbling and done nothing.

However, Clarke changed the narrative by reaching out to Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck in January to chat about the future of English game amid what he considered to be a very real prospect of a breakaway European Super League (ESL).

This concept is felt by many to be the threat Europe's biggest clubs routinely use in an effort to get their own way.

Indeed, in his exit speech as Barcelona president in October, Josep Maria Bartomeu said he had signed the club up to the idea - but no evidence has been presented to show this is the case. A clear issue is that operating outside the umbrella of world governing body Fifa would deny the players of those clubs access to their national teams.

Beyond that, those who refuse to believe an ESL is possible wonder if any of the clubs likely to be involved had ever thought of the consequences of finishing last in such a competition - as someone would have to - given their entire existence is built around success at the top end of elite football.

Clarke adopted a more cautious view, saying it would be "foolish in the extreme" to discount the potential for private equity investors to view top-level football as an investment vehicle. In other words; with enough money involved all obstacles might be overcome, and perhaps Fifa's power would be marginalised. Maybe the very best international footballers would simply no longer play in competitions like the World Cup if alternative structures were more lucrative. After all, cricket witnessed similar in the late 1970s with Kerry Packer's World Series.

In suggesting to Buck that talks should be opened up to include another couple of clubs and the Premier League and EFL, Clarke was trying to address the situation as he saw it, while finding a solution for structural problems further down the pyramid. There was no Premier League representation in the talks that took place, and eventually resulted in Project Big Picture.

Then Covid-19 took the game in its grip. The 'big six' had something they could offer and virtually everyone else desperately needed - money.

On 5 May, EFL chairman Rick Parry told a DCMS committee his member clubs were staring at a "£200m black hole". But the vastly experienced former Liverpool chief executive, the first person to run the Premier League, knew he had a wider challenge: trying to smooth what has become a cliff edge between the Premier League and Championship.

 

 

The Championship play-off final is billed as football's 'richest game'. Its estimated £170m value highlights the issue Parry is facing. The gap between the leagues is so wide, the entire future of the competing clubs could be shaped by one bad decision or mistake. Instead of a cliff, Parry's aim is to turn the difference between England's top two leagues into a slope.

For Parry, Project Big Picture, as it came to be known after Clarke had persuaded Henry to change the name from 'Revitalisation', contained many of the solutions to his problems. He engaged enthusiastically. By the time talks were halted and put on ice on 19 May, 18 meetings had been held. Differing narratives have since emerged but it is understood all parties had agreed they would resume at some stage.

With the hoped-for return of fans delayed, and Premier League losses at £100m-a-month, that stage arrived in late September.

By that point, Parry's plea was for £250m. Progress in talks with the Premier League had been minimal. EFL clubs were getting desperate. A meeting of the 'big six' was convened on 8 October. Three days later, the plans were leaked to the Telegraph.

Amid a lot of detail, these were the main points.

• 25% of annual Premier League income to be paid to the EFL, including £250m up front
• £100m 'gift' to the FA
• Community Shield scrapped
• EFL Cup either scrapped or played without teams involved in Europe
• Premier League reduced to 18 teams
• Abolition of one-club, one-vote in the Premier League
• Any six of the Premier League's nine longest-serving members - the 'big six' plus Everton, West Ham and Southampton - granted power to pass any regulation
• Two automatic promotion places from the Championship. Third slot to be decided by new play-offs, including 16th in the Premier League, plus third, fourth and fifth in the Championship
• Premier League clubs allowed to sell eight games a season outside the UK on their own digital platforms

Parry was sent out to talk up Project Big Picture.

His voice was quickly drowned out by those who were against it. This included Clarke, who claimed he had strongly opposed significant sections of it, which is true. But he did not disclose the full extent of his involvement.

More importantly, the fans were opposed, including those from the clubs who created it. These fans groups do have influence - but there have been times when their voice has been ignored.

Evidently, the views of the remaining 14 Premier League clubs were key. One the 'big six' thought they could carry with them - West Ham - soon signalled their opposition, a source telling BBC Sport the club was "very much against it".

Against this backdrop, Masters met the 'big six' on 13 October. This discussion lasted an hour.

The following day, they met the league's 14 other clubs amid an atmosphere of anger and frustration. Conspiracy theories abound - was the story leaked to try to kill Project Big Picture, or had it been done to promote it? Trust was in short supply - and this was only made worse when it became apparent 'the 14' had not been told the full facts about Premier League knowledge over the plans.

Initially it was suggested hardly anything was known. The reality was Masters had been aware of the general direction the talks had been heading for months and chairman Gary Hoffman, who was only appointed on 24 April, had been given a hard copy of the proposals by Buck.

From the outcome of that meeting came word that Project Big Picture was dead in the water. Instead, all 20 clubs committed to a 'strategic review' which had initially been mentioned the previous spring but had been put to one side to allow clubs to deal with the financial effects of the pandemic.

"Project Big Picture is not even mentioned around the Premier League table any more," says one club source. "The phrase is not even used. The architects know it is toxic."

When the terms of reference for the relaunched review were issued, they had been given a wider focus and a tighter timeframe - March 2021.

Among the areas being looked at are:

• Competition and league structures
• Calendar construction
• Revenue distribution
• Broadcast strategy

Little wonder those behind Project Big Picture dismiss completely the notion that their idea has been rejected. Indeed, even within the 14, there is some sympathy for their position.

They know European expansion is coming. The feeling is they would be willing to accommodate it, providing it did not come at the expense of weekend league matches. In other words, an EFL Cup without 'big-six' participation or with 'big-six' clubs fielding Under-23 teams is possible.

What they believe must not happen is any change to the one-club, one-vote structure by which issues facing the Premier League are decided. In the informal chats that take place between senior executives on matchdays, there is concern over the prospect of the 'big six' expanding their decision-making power.

"If that was to happen, the 25% EFL distribution might not mean much," says one source. "If the big clubs decided they were selling their own games themselves, the central broadcast income would dwindle very quickly. Twenty-five percent of nothing is nothing."

 

Would increased power for the Premier League's 'big six' see so-called smaller clubs further distanced from success?

 

 

These clubs get the argument that big clubs generate the income. Broadly, the same clubs always have.

In the 25 years from 1967 to 1992, before the Premier League began, Manchester United and Liverpool were among the top-six best supported clubs in every single season. Arsenal were in there 19 times, Tottenham 17 and Manchester City 16. Chelsea were in there on four occasions, the same as West Ham but fewer than Leeds and Aston Villa. All are a long way short of Everton, who were included 15 times.

The world has changed, though. In the current climate, it would be hard to argue Chelsea were not one of England's 'big six'. However, it is pointed out by those outside this exclusive club that they must play someone - and the attraction of the Premier League is based around the shocks it can provide.

Those six clubs have, as a collective, finished in the top six places in only five of the past 10 seasons, and arguably Leicester's title success in 2016 is the single most amazing event English football has ever experienced. Whether the six agree is debatable - but the point is made, forcefully, that very quickly, even the fans of those clubs would soon get bored of watching their teams win easily every week in a league where the imbalance of resource was even greater than is presently the case.

"We are totally opposed to concentrating power in the hands of six billionaire owners," said those fans of the 'big six'. They are not alone. Ask for a red line when it comes to what could not be given up during the Premier League's strategic review and from numerous sources, the response comes back: 'One club, one vote.'

Giving a little and losing a little tends to be the logic for periods of intense negotiations. These talks are not quite that simple. The biggest clubs feel they are being bullied by the rest, the rest think the story is the other way round.

Former Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore was widely acclaimed for the manner with which he held the clubs together during his 15 years at the head of the organisation until his departure in November 2018.

History may yet determine his greatest move was getting out at exactly the right time.

[davieG]

European Super League: Poll finds younger fans happier about prospect of breakaway league

 

A BBC Sport poll suggests that depends on their age, what club they support and where they live.

In a Savanta ComRes poll of 2,100 football fans, almost half of younger fans (48%) said they would be happy about the prospect of a European Super League, while 18% said they would be unhappy.

In contrast, just 10% of fans aged 55 and over were happy about the idea, with close to two-thirds (63%) unhappy.

The poll also shows:

Across all ages, 30% of fans were happy about the idea of a European Super League, with 40% unhappy.
More than a third (35%) of fans aged 55 and over said they felt a breakaway league would be 'very bad' for football overall. Among fans aged 18-34 that figure was just 10%.
A fifth (20%) of younger fans thought the European Super League would be a 'very good' idea for football overall, compared to just 6% of older fans.
Close to half of male fans (48%) are unhappy at the idea of a European Super League, as opposed to just under a quarter (23%) of female football fans. More than a third (35%) of female football fans are happy about the idea.

 

More results here -  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55159249

[volpeazzurro]

I just don't personally see a European Super League having longevity. Even if we forget the practical things like ticket prices and travel costs for fans and accepting that most of the money may be made from TV revenue, surely its got a limited shelf life? Even the most ardent Liverpool or Manchester fans would get sick of playing the same old Barcelona and Real Madrid week in week out? It's precisely the difference, unpredictability  and constantly changing nature of our league that keeps us coming back for more. I know personally that if I only had about a dozen other teams that got served up to me each season and no cup competitions, I'd get bored very quickly and probably start going to watch someone in the Championship, 1st division or lower. To see Messi and Ronaldo would be brilliant, don't get me wrong, but not every week. Covid has surely shown us that football as a game is a pretty sterile product without fans. A trip to Paris or Barcelona in the Champions League would be a great treat, but that's the point, it wouldn't be if it was every week. I certainly wouldn't pay any regular TV subscriptions to just watch Liverpool and Barcelona constantly as it would be meaningless very quickly. It's not always about watch the best football or product, it's about watching your team.

Edited 3 December 2020 by volpeazzurro

[davieG]

1 minute ago, volpeazzurro said:

I just don't personally see a European Super League having longevity. Even if we forget the practical things like ticket prices and travel costs for fans and accepting that most of the money may be made from TV revenue, surely its got a limited shelf life? Even the most ardent Liverpool or Manchester fans would get sick of playing the same old Barcelona and Real Madrid week in week out? It's precisely the difference, unpredictability  and constantly changing nature of our league that keeps us coming back for more. I know personally that it I only had about a dozen other teams that got served up to me each season and no cup competitions, I'd get bored very quickly and probably start going to watch someone in the Championship, 1st division or lower. To see Messi and Ronaldo would be brilliant, don't get me wrong, but not every week. Covid has surely shown us that football as a game is a pretty sterile product without fans. A trip to Paris or Barcelona in the Champions League would be a great treat, but that's the point, it wouldn't be if it was every week. I certainly wouldn't pay any regular TV subscriptions to just watch Liverpool and Barcelona constantly as it would be meaningless very quickly. 

Don't they want the Super League and the PL to run concurrently, it'll just replace the Champions League but will be guaranteed for some clubs and a virtually closed shop. So not really that much difference to now just comes with a guarantee. 

 

I don't watch the Euro Cups anyway unless we're involved half the games are meaningless anyway.

 

Still not in favour of any closed league/cup competition.

[mozartfox]

Has Kloppers been consulted?  More games and if they want to sell this to say Asian Markets, 7.45 GMT kick-offs 'ain't going to work. Plus for the USA, subscribers will need to skip work to watch games at that time.

 

Some Asian Countries have in fact dropped the TV rights for the UCL and Europa League due to the kick-off times.  They show the Asian Club Champions League competition instead.

 

Let them fuch off and do it, it will be a flop like that pathetic American effort was.

[Heskey2011]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

European Super League: Poll finds younger fans happier about prospect of breakaway league

 

A BBC Sport poll suggests that depends on their age, what club they support and where they live.

In a Savanta ComRes poll of 2,100 football fans, almost half of younger fans (48%) said they would be happy about the prospect of a European Super League, while 18% said they would be unhappy.

In contrast, just 10% of fans aged 55 and over were happy about the idea, with close to two-thirds (63%) unhappy.

The poll also shows:

Across all ages, 30% of fans were happy about the idea of a European Super League, with 40% unhappy.
More than a third (35%) of fans aged 55 and over said they felt a breakaway league would be 'very bad' for football overall. Among fans aged 18-34 that figure was just 10%.
A fifth (20%) of younger fans thought the European Super League would be a 'very good' idea for football overall, compared to just 6% of older fans.
Close to half of male fans (48%) are unhappy at the idea of a European Super League, as opposed to just under a quarter (23%) of female football fans. More than a third (35%) of female football fans are happy about the idea.

 

More results here -  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55159249

Gaaaawwdd kids are stupid

[Stadt]

On 01/12/2020 at 09:26, davieG said:

With decisions requiring a two-thirds majority, he felt there were 14 clubs working against the 'big six'.

The brass neck of these c unts, zero self awareness 

[Adster]

5 hours ago, davieG said:

European Super League: Poll finds younger fans happier about prospect of breakaway league

 

A BBC Sport poll suggests that depends on their age, what club they support and where they live.

In a Savanta ComRes poll of 2,100 football fans, almost half of younger fans (48%) said they would be happy about the prospect of a European Super League, while 18% said they would be unhappy.

In contrast, just 10% of fans aged 55 and over were happy about the idea, with close to two-thirds (63%) unhappy.

The poll also shows:

Across all ages, 30% of fans were happy about the idea of a European Super League, with 40% unhappy.
More than a third (35%) of fans aged 55 and over said they felt a breakaway league would be 'very bad' for football overall. Among fans aged 18-34 that figure was just 10%.
A fifth (20%) of younger fans thought the European Super League would be a 'very good' idea for football overall, compared to just 6% of older fans.
Close to half of male fans (48%) are unhappy at the idea of a European Super League, as opposed to just under a quarter (23%) of female football fans. More than a third (35%) of female football fans are happy about the idea.

 

More results here -  https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55159249

What a surprise. 

 

Kids are generally brain dead morons with the personality of a potato these days. Probably all "big six" fans. 

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Stadt said:

The brass neck of these c unts, zero self awareness 

They can't see that it's 6 clubs working against 14.

 

Who does this fit better too - there's none so blind as those who will not see

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, Heskey2011 said:

Gaaaawwdd kids are stupid

 

1 hour ago, Adster said:

What a surprise. 

 

Kids are generally brain dead morons with the personality of a potato these days. Probably all "big six" fans. 

And women? If you fellas react like that to 20% of kids fancying this euro super league,  what do you reckon  to the 35% of women who like the idea?! 😛

[Corky]

3 hours ago, Stadt said:

The brass neck of these c unts, zero self awareness 

Would never happen the other way round, would it?

 

They really haven't grasped the notion that people might feel pissed off at being pushed out/ marginalised and may not want to support the bigger teams in future.

[urban fox]

I would laugh my head off if the "other 14" voted against allowing the "big 6" to play in the PL if decided to turn the European comps into a closed shop. I thought that the FA actually decided where the apportioned places went based on league position/cups etc. Surely if that is the case then if these clubs tried to do the super league thing, then kick them out of the PL/FA cup etc.

[funkyrobot]

Tbh European football is generally a bore fest until the final knock out stages. It’s only of interest if your team is in it. Let’s be honest if it was any club other than Leicester, I wouldn’t be that arsed watching an English club in a 5.55pm kick off away match in the Ukraine like I am now. Premier league is where it’s at. 

[Webbo]

fck em. Let them piss off to a European super league. Let's see how happy they are when they're mid table every year.

[Fox of WA]

19 hours ago, volpeazzurro said:

I just don't personally see a European Super League having longevity. Even if we forget the practical things like ticket prices and travel costs for fans and accepting that most of the money may be made from TV revenue, surely its got a limited shelf life? Even the most ardent Liverpool or Manchester fans would get sick of playing the same old Barcelona and Real Madrid week in week out? It's precisely the difference, unpredictability  and constantly changing nature of our league that keeps us coming back for more. I know personally that if I only had about a dozen other teams that got served up to me each season and no cup competitions, I'd get bored very quickly and probably start going to watch someone in the Championship, 1st division or lower. To see Messi and Ronaldo would be brilliant, don't get me wrong, but not every week. Covid has surely shown us that football as a game is a pretty sterile product without fans. A trip to Paris or Barcelona in the Champions League would be a great treat, but that's the point, it wouldn't be if it was every week. I certainly wouldn't pay any regular TV subscriptions to just watch Liverpool and Barcelona constantly as it would be meaningless very quickly. It's not always about watch the best football or product, it's about watching your team.

I’m totally against the idea of a euro super league, but living in America, I can say that this line of reasoning doesn’t hold a lot of water. You just have to look at how the NFL can fill seats and make a ton of money despite huge geographic differences, fewer games every year, and “the same old” teams every season. These big teams in Europe look at the stability and massive income of these American leagues and want that for themselves. Like I said, I think it’s not a good idea, but I can understand why they’re into it. 

[Chrysalis]

EFL continuing without european clubs I am ok with, I think it shouldnt be scrapped though.

Community shield is just one game dont see why that is considered harmful.

The solution to increasing european fixtures is to reduce international fixtures, not sure why this is not seen by those who make the decisions.

[Aus Fox]

The Charity or Community Shield being scrapped pisses me off a little more than perhaps it should.

You can almost be certain the Premier League and FA Cup winners will both be off playing each other all over the world. So why get rid of one big game for fans? Regardless of whether it’s a big trophy or a money spinner or not, it’s a cracking day out for your loyal supporters. Teams need to be really careful about turning their back on their bread and butter.

[Grebfromgrebland]

**** that I might just start watching east enders again. So Sanjay and Gita still run the cafe?

[Heskey2011]

16 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

 

And women? If you fellas react like that to 20% of kids fancying this euro super league,  what do you reckon  to the 35% of women who like the idea?! 😛

Super nintendo, Superdrug....do I need to continue????

Speaking as a marketing and advertising consultant management man, if you want to sell to children or women simply put super in the name and kerching a ding a ding dong.

 

 

 

 

[davieG]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

EFL continuing without european clubs I am ok with, I think it shouldnt be scrapped though.

Community shield is just one game dont see why that is considered harmful.

The solution to increasing european fixtures is to reduce international fixtures, not sure why this is not seen by those who make the decisions.

It's probably where FIFA gets a lot of it's income and of course they're they controllers of football world wide.

[volpeazzurro]

2 hours ago, Fox of WA said:

I’m totally against the idea of a euro super league, but living in America, I can say that this line of reasoning doesn’t hold a lot of water. You just have to look at how the NFL can fill seats and make a ton of money despite huge geographic differences, fewer games every year, and “the same old” teams every season. These big teams in Europe look at the stability and massive income of these American leagues and want that for themselves. Like I said, I think it’s not a good idea, but I can understand why they’re into it. 

But is football and the NFL comparable? I don't know personally.

 

I do think that football and the following of your team in the UK is far more tribal and has been for generations. I for example subscribe to Sky sports firstly to watch Leicester City play whoever first and foremost and then other teams to a lesser extent when I feel like it, but more so if a teams result has an effect on us. From what you read, the average Liverpool or Manchester City fan wanted to win the Premiership more than the Champions League and sometimes City's crowd for European nights have been less than impressive. 

 

Personally speaking, if there was no chance of seeing Leicester on Sky I wouldn't subscribe, I'd just continue to go to watch them live with my season ticket. If it was just to see a repeat season on season of a few European teams, I'd not buy a season ticket. European football for me is a brilliant added bonus to aim for but I'd sooner watch us week on week in the Championship than have just European football as I'm far more interested in what's happening to Derby, Villa, Lincoln or Oadby Town than I am in PSG or Barcelona. 

 

I think culturally and sport wise that we're very different to Americans. I think the average Liverpool or Manchester City fan would miss domestic football, it's competativeness, rivalries and banter far more than a supposedly slightly better quality product. I would forsee them getting bored very quickly and as teams, they'd soon become an irrelevance to most fans in this country. I think far less people after initial interest would tune in to watch a European Super League than they do Champions League football now because the teams would become remote non entities over time. 

[worth_the_wait]

This so-called poll of 2100 "fans" conducted by Savanta ComRes.

 

Where do they find these people?   What world are they living in?

 

According to this morning's BBC article, the poll shows that while 30% of fans think it has improved the game, 44% of fans actually think it has made football worse.   

And breaking it down a bit further:
 36% of supporters aged 18-34 believe VAR has made football better, compared with 29% of fans aged 55 and over.
 59% of fans aged 55 and over said VAR is making football worse.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55160134
VAR: Hit or miss? Fans' poll on football's most controversial debate

 

Compare this to a poll of a well known Premier League club.

Foxestalk had a poll started in Aug 2019 before we'd had chance to get used to VAR in its full glory, and the results over a few months were as follows:

 

Love it, all for it, fantastic introduction to football       109          16.05%
Hate it, games gone                                           236          34.76%
Somewhere in between                                          334          49.19%

 

When an updated poll was done in Jul 2020 after we'd seen VAR in action for a season, the results were as follows

 

Love it, all for it, fantastic introduction to football         1           2.08%
Hate it, games gone                                            25          52.08%
Somewhere in between                                           22          45.83%

ok the 2nd poll only had 50 or so replies, but the % who "love it" went down from 16% to 2% (which to me seems about right).   

And I'm also not trying to claim that LCFC fans are representative of everyone else, but I suspect our take on it is no better or worse than any other Premier League fans

Yet Savanta ComRes have dredged up a poll implying 30% think VAR has improved football ???

 

 

 

Edited 4 December 2020 by worth_the_wait

[mozartfox]

The Nations League is a total flop. This will go the same way.   I really cannot see how say a Leicester fan will pay Sky or BT anything to watch Arsenal V Porto. I personally would not bother watching a free stream of that match-up ! 

 

After 1 year of novelty value, this will fail.

[FoxCal]

12 hours ago, Webbo said:

fck em. Let them piss off to a European super league. Let's see how happy they are when they're mid table every year.

Arsenal are doing their best to get ahead of this, in fairness.

[davieG]

3 hours ago, Fox of WA said:

I’m totally against the idea of a euro super league, but living in America, I can say that this line of reasoning doesn’t hold a lot of water. You just have to look at how the NFL can fill seats and make a ton of money despite huge geographic differences, fewer games every year, and “the same old” teams every season. These big teams in Europe look at the stability and massive income of these American leagues and want that for themselves. Like I said, I think it’s not a good idea, but I can understand why they’re into it. 

But with the NFL draft system and what seems like a more equitable sharing of revenue there's more of a level playing field. These 'top' European Teams are sucking in all the income which enables them to attract all the best players it's about as uneven as you could possible make it already and they now want more!