American billionaire’s plan to revolutionise football

Euros belief that they can have private ownership clubs with the expectation that those owners dump a ton of their money into the club but then also keep ticket prices where the fans want them (low) and be "expressions of the community" which translates to the forfeiture of more profits so the fans can keep things as is seems so one-sided and misguided.

Either the community should form their own clubs that won't allow a single owner to own and operate the club, have government own and operate clubs or have college teams if you want those kinds of concessions.

You shouldn't be happily taking in the good Sheikh's money with the belief that he won't get his when the time comes. It's just laughable.
 
Euros belief that they can have private ownership clubs with the expectation that those owners dump a ton of their money into the club but then also keep ticket prices where the fans want them (low) and be "expressions of the community" which translates to the forfeiture of more profits so the fans can keep things as is seems so one-sided and misguided.

Either the community should form their own clubs that won't allow a single owner to own and operate the club, have government own and operate clubs or have college teams if you want those kinds of concessions.

You shouldn't be happily taking in the good Sheikh's money with the belief that he won't get his when the time comes. It's just laughable.

I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick. No fans are expecting a billionaire to buy their club and then run it as a massive money drain for the glory of the fans at a massive loss. Most fans are willing to abide their club owner doing his thing as long as he doesn't cross the mythical line between "good" owner and "bad" owner, by treating the club as a vanity project, expressly acting against the fans' interests or otherwise doing very unpopular things. However, once an owner does cross that line then the fans start with the boycotts, protest marches, throwing bricks at the club offices etc.

That doesn't change the fact that we still hold the belief - because, originally, this is how the clubs we support were genuinely formed - that the clubs belong to the fans. It's why clubs simply don't relocate in Europe, and it's why the leagues can't shut down clubs who they think aren't being run well enough. It's also why, legally, German clubs must have at least 50%+1 of their club's shares owned by fans - the government will not allow businesses or wealthy owners to purchase a majority shareholding. It's worth noting that there has been talk in the UK of enacting a law to force clubs to put fans on the board so that the owners cannot act against the fans' intentions.

FYI, it has happened on a number of occasions that fans have formed their own clubs in order to turn their backs on dodgy owners. AFC Wimbledon, AFC Liverpool and FC United of Manchester were all made this way. The main reason the latter two aren't doing as well for support as they could be (although they do still get respectable numbers) is because the fans of the original clubs still hold out hope that the situation can be turned around and that there will be no further need for protesting. However, if a Super League ever replaced the PL it would become obvious that that was never going to happen. That, I think, would become the point at which the floodgates broke.
 
How is the proposed super league any different than the current champions league in terms of being "plastic"? Same concept, different way of selecting teams.
you're right . . . i think these clubs just want to get a bigger chunk of the TV / sponsorship money and cut UEFA out of the picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BossNYC