Premiership football and UEFA and FIFA
The English Premiership is (again) being told by UEFA to reduce the number of clubs to 18 from 2007/8. This is to allow more free dates for UEFA and FIFA competitions. Rightly so, the Premiership is annoyed by this - surely they and they alone should be in charge of their own league structure.
Reducing the number of clubs merely reduces the opportunities for fringe clubs, as the top few spaces are always going to be occupied by the biggest clubs. Realistically, there is very little chance of Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea being outside the top half of the table, and Newcastle, Tottenham and their ilk only have one poor season in 4 or 5 where they flirt with relegation. This means that the middle of the table, and the lower middle of the table are occupied by the clubs which are either fighting to stay up (West Ham), building success from small roots (Charlton, Bolton), or are fading from past glories (Birmingham, Leeds?, Villa). The actual teams will change from season to season. All this means that the number of spaces available for successful clubs from the Championship or lower is reduced, and the likelihood of going back down again immediately is increased.
Is it good for football to further concentrate the power in a small band of clubs? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to allow FIFA and UEFA to dictate to national associations? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to reduce the opportunities for small clubs? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to increase the number of European games (that get lower attendances and actual interest from fans than for domestic games: witness Middlesbrough's crowds in the UEFA Cup last year)? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to bring in meaningless and non-competitive competitions simply to play them in Tokyo as FIFA gets lots of money there (World Club Championship, etc.)? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for European football to be built in the image of the EU where the "big ideas" from the centre are put out as dictats to the clubs/countries which have to follow them or risk sanctions? Almost certainly not.
Reducing the number of clubs merely reduces the opportunities for fringe clubs, as the top few spaces are always going to be occupied by the biggest clubs. Realistically, there is very little chance of Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea being outside the top half of the table, and Newcastle, Tottenham and their ilk only have one poor season in 4 or 5 where they flirt with relegation. This means that the middle of the table, and the lower middle of the table are occupied by the clubs which are either fighting to stay up (West Ham), building success from small roots (Charlton, Bolton), or are fading from past glories (Birmingham, Leeds?, Villa). The actual teams will change from season to season. All this means that the number of spaces available for successful clubs from the Championship or lower is reduced, and the likelihood of going back down again immediately is increased.
Is it good for football to further concentrate the power in a small band of clubs? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to allow FIFA and UEFA to dictate to national associations? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to reduce the opportunities for small clubs? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to increase the number of European games (that get lower attendances and actual interest from fans than for domestic games: witness Middlesbrough's crowds in the UEFA Cup last year)? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for football to bring in meaningless and non-competitive competitions simply to play them in Tokyo as FIFA gets lots of money there (World Club Championship, etc.)? Almost certainly not.
Is it good for European football to be built in the image of the EU where the "big ideas" from the centre are put out as dictats to the clubs/countries which have to follow them or risk sanctions? Almost certainly not.
posted by Jonathan | Friday, June 09, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home