European Soccer-The future

[Galaxy]

Reading over Roman and Chelsea's insane spending, and Glazer's ManUnited takeover, this article is rather interesting:

http://americanwaymag.com/aw/lifesty...ate=12/15/2004


MONEY BALL
by Carl Honoré


Like baseball in the U.S., soccer in Europe could become too rich for its own good.

During the European soccer championship this past June, the television cameras often panned the crowd for famous faces. Cheering on their national teams were prime ministers and monarchs, movie stars, supermodels, and sporting heroes. The face that really set tongues wagging, however, belonged to a boyish billionaire by the name of Roman Abramovich.

The 38-year-old Russian oil baron is the talk of the soccer world — and may even offer a glimpse of its future. In July 2003, Abramovich bought Chelsea, a London club, for an estimated $233 million. He then set about building his own personal dream team, blowing a further $223 million (so far) to recruit top players from across Europe. Overnight, “Chelski,” as the British tabloids christened the club, went from pauper to powerhouse.

European soccer, like major league sports in the United States, is no stranger
to owners with very deep pockets. AC Milan, for instance, belongs to Silvio Berlusconi, the megarich prime minister of Italy. Traditionally, bankrolling a soccer club is less about making money — few ever make a profit — than it is about having fun, building a public profile, and hobnobbing with powerful people. Yet Abramovich, whose personal fortune is estimated at $13.32 billion, has redefined what it means to be a wealthy owner. In a sport where clubs purchase players, rather than trade for them, he behaves like a cross between Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and Imelda Marcos. Pundits constantly speculate on which player he will buy next, and for how much. His aides warn that he might one day spend up to $200 million to purchase a single star. “If I feel we need to buy any particular player to get the results we want,” Abramovich has said, “I’ll just spend more money.”
As well as making rival clubs nervous, the “Russian Revolution” at Chelsea has reignited the debate over the power of money in soccer. At a time when the sport is more popular than ever, fans increasingly ask the question: Is the beautiful game in danger of selling its soul?

Like major league baseball, European soccer has changed profoundly in recent years. Pay TV deals have pumped vast sums of money into the game, helping to modernize stadiums and pushing up salaries. In England’s top league, the average payroll has more than doubled since 1999. Many clubs are now listed on the stock market, and the top-tier clubs — Real Madrid, Juventus, Manchester United — have become global brands, selling shirts and other merchandise all over the world. Last year, Manchester United racked up annual sales of $314 million, compared to $280 million by the New York Yankees.

And with the cash comes social cachet: In England, soccer is no longer seen as the preserve of the lager-soaked blue-collar male. It is hip and trendy. These days, the middle class flocks to matches and discusses team tactics at dinner parties. Politicians and novelists flaunt their passion for the game in the media.

Nowhere is the gentrification more apparent than at Stamford Bridge, the home ground of Chelsea. Rioting hooligans are now a thing of the past. Instead, up in the private boxes, the glitterati sip champagne and nibble sushi. Bankers and lawyers, families in tow, rub shoulders in the crowd. Not long ago, Tatler, the magazine for the posh set, ranked attending a Chelsea match higher up the social ladder than watching the horses at Royal Ascot.

But there is a downside to moving upmarket. At some clubs, ticket prices have rocketed beyond the reach of many fans, approaching the equivalent of more than $100 for the best seats. In English stadiums, where assigned seating has replaced standing on open terraces, the atmosphere has lost some of its raw, primal edge. Crowds are less vocal than before. “It’s not as mental as it was,” moans John Barry, 38, a lifelong Chelsea fan. “It’s all a bit polite now.”

As well, the games are less competitive. The top European leagues are dominated more than ever by a handful of rich clubs. In England, London-based Arsenal went undefeated last season. Year after year, the same old heavyweights line up to collect the major trophies across Europe.

And on the rare occasion that a smaller club does defy the odds to win a champi-
onship, the asset-strippers are never far behind. Last May, Porto, a financial middleweight from Portugal, stunned everyone by winning the UEFA Champions League, the elite tournament for the top clubs in Europe. Within weeks, though, the continental giants moved in to cherry-pick the team’s best talent. Barcelona bought Anderson Luis de Souza Deco, the midfield maestro. Chelsea hired the coach, Jose Mourinho, and bought defenders Paolo Ferreira and Ricardo Carvalho. No one expects Porto to win the Champions League again anytime soon.

For now, soccer remains unpredictable enough to be entertaining. In every league, the underdog can still defeat the richest club. What’s more, fans of lesser teams still get excited about striving for lesser goals. Finishing high enough in the standings to qualify for European cup competitions is now the Holy Grail for many. Toward the end of the season, some of the most gripping matches are played at the bottom of the league. That is because, across Europe, teams pay a very heavy price for finishing in the cellar: banishment or “relegation” to the league below. Nevertheless, the powers that be in soccer are starting to worry that too much talent is concentrated in too few hands. If the elite clubs continue to monopolize the best players and the top trophies, will fans begin to lose interest?

A more pressing concern is that clubs can overstretch themselves in an effort to keep pace with the super-rich. Teams across Europe are mired in debt. Chelsea was $148 million in the red when Abramovich came to the rescue. With no sugar daddy to save them, other clubs have gone into meltdown. Two years ago, after spending a fortune on players, Leeds United reached the semifinals of the Champions League. This year, the club almost went bankrupt. After finishing at the bottom of the FA Premier League, it sold all its stars and was relegated.

Chelsea fans are alive to the risks. On one hand, they are grateful to Abramovich for his largess. Before every home game, they sing “Kalinka,” a Russian folk song, in his honor. They also taunt rival clubs by singing, “We’re rich and we know we are.” But beneath the bravado lurks a nagging doubt: What happens if Abramovich loses interest and turns off the tap?

“Chucking money about is not the same thing as feeling loyalty to the club,” says Mick Dennis, a 26-year-old Chelsea fan. “For me there’s a question mark over Abramovich’s commitment in the long term — and if he moves on, we’re stuffed.”

These days, loyalty is rare in European soccer. With so much money sloshing around, it’s every man for himself. Top stars roam the continent like mercenaries, hawking their services to the highest bidder. One day, a player professes undying love to his club. A month later, he is slipping on a rival jersey with a big smile on his face. The richest clubs often try to poach each other’s players. Last summer, when Real Madrid went after Patrick Viera, Arsenal’s formidable captain, the president of the Spanish club, Florentino Perez, underlined how venal soccer has become: “There are no players that are not for sale,” he declared. “The only problem is the money.”

To bring some stability, and to bolster competition on the field, soccer authorities have taken steps to curb the wheeling and dealing. Since 2002, clubs in the FA Premier League can only sell players in January and during the summer break. New rules may limit the size of team rosters, partly to prevent rich clubs from hoarding all the best players. Another rule change under consideration would make it harder for owners to indulge in reckless spending. For its part, the European Union may clamp down on tax breaks and other hidden subsidies that inflate the war chests of clubs in Italy and Spain.

Meanwhile, soccer clubs across Europe are trying to put their houses in order. That means trimming wage bills, signing players to shorter, performance-related contracts, and making greater efforts to nurture young talent instead of buying established stars. (Not unlike what many sports teams in America have had to do as revenue flattens.)

Yet the gulf between the haves and have-nots continues to widen. Unlike American sports leagues like the NFL and NBA, European soccer is built on the winner-takes-all ethos of the free market. Draft systems, sala*ry caps, revenue-sharing, and other meas*ures that level the playing field in the U.S. are anathema here. Instead, the rules help the rich get richer. For example, the more successful a team is on the field, the more TV revenue it gets. Last year, Arsenal pocketed $37 million for reaching the quarterfinals of the Champions League. By contrast, Leeds can expect to see its annual earnings fall by the same amount now that it is playing in England’s second league.

Some experts think the richest teams will eventually break away to form a pan-
European “super league.” This exclusive club would be able to attract the top players and pay them the top salaries. It would also take the lion’s share of TV and sponsorship money. To compete in such a league would take big bucks, which is why the free-spending Abramovich could be a harbinger of things to come.

These days, the media bristles with rumors of billionaires lining up to buy soccer clubs. Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister of Thailand, reportedly has his heart set on Liverpool. Vladimir Potanin, another Russian oligarch, has been linked with Manchester City. And Malcolm Glazer, owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, recently increased his stake in Manchester United to more than 28 percent, fueling speculation of a takeover bid.

In the meantime, all eyes are on Chelsea. Can Abramovich parlay his millions into a major trophy this season? Whatever fans think of him, the message from the bookies is clear: Don’t bet against it.


Thoughts?

[TroyF]

It's accurate.

When I play FM, I can play with a big club or a 3/4 division club and enjoy myself immensley. When I play with a lower level Premiere league team or a championship squad, I grow frustrated quickly. I enjoy watching careers progress. . . and with a club like that you simply don't have a chance to do that with a talented young player.

Well, real life is the same. For the mid/small market teams, it isn't about winning a title. It's about an upperdivision finish or a place in Europe. And that's a dream season. Even then, they have a tough time getting new players.

Not sure it'll be a long term problem. Its' just something that everyone's going to have to live with. It's the way it is.

[ColtCrazy]

Abramovich's way isn't the only way, but it is the quicker way. There are clubs that have slowly made there way up the table. Bolton comes to mind. A few years ago they we a team that flip-flopped between Premiership and the old Division 1 (now the championship) eventually, they stayed up, finished lower level, but stayed up. Now they finish in the top 10. They have built a nice little team around the one star they could hold on to, Jay Jay Ochua(sp). You have to be patient, but it can be done.

What the problem is, is when team's do it Chelsea's way without Chelsea money. They mentioned Leeds, who bet the farm on winning the champions\ league. They never even won the premiership title. Brentford is another one, went up one year, bought tons of players to try to stay up, went back down anyway, then went bankrupt. I'm glad Crystal Palace didn't do that, wreck the next 10 years to try to stay up. True, they went back down, but at least they aren't going bankrupt and the chance to go back up is there.

People tend to forget Fulham. Fulham has Al-Fahed (Harrod's owner, father of Lady Diane's last bf) who pumped money into the club, they went from nowhere (I think Division 2) to the Premiership. Suddenly, he lost interest. They are still in the premiership, but are usually bottom 10. If Abramovich win's the Champion's League, his interest will be done. The money will go down (but don't forget, Chelsea was a good team before he got there, they just couldn't get past ManU or Arsenal.)

[cartman]

I personally do not have a problem with this. Sports by its very nature is a Darwinian endeavor. Money is just a tool to be used to help the competitive nature of a club. Spending a ton of money doesn't guarantee success, but it can make success much easier to obtain.

[moriarty]

I personally enjoy seeing an Abramovich and his money parted ... even if it means Chelsea wins a few titles. I just wish he didn't have so darn much of it.

[Marc Vaughan]

As well, the games are less competitive. The top European leagues are dominated more than ever by a handful of rich clubs. In England, London-based Arsenal went undefeated last season. Year after year, the same old heavyweights line up to collect the major trophies across Europe.

No one remember Everton sneaking the Champions League spot last season then? ....

Over any of the various similar over-performing mid-table clubs around Europe, yes its over due for a club outside the 'money clubs' to win a title - but imho it'll happen, its rarer now but still within reach of a club if they have a good enough streak (and for once the large clubs lose a player at a critical stage due to injury).

In England next season things are still quite open, especially so as some of the mid-table clubs have been strengthening their sides quietly and now have enough depth imho to at the very least push for a CL spot ...

(keep an eye on Spurs especially)

[Marc Vaughan]

PS> I have to believe that ... after all I'm a Brighton fan

[Mac Howard]

Using Abramovic to illustrate the way things are going is flawed. There's not many of his ilk around - Glazer had to borrow $1 billion of the $1.5 billion he paid for Man Utd to buy it out. He's not about to pump money into the club the way Abramovic did nor is any other owner.

Smaller clubs do have the opportunity to succeed in European soccer because of a feature missing from his analysis - the close geographical proximity of clubs. This means that most clubs have a catchment area for fans that matches the biggest. I come from Rochdale - a town with a club that has the dubious history of never being relegated or promoted from England's lowest fully professional league - now known as Division Two but in fact England's fourth division. It currently pulls in about 4,000 fans a game but being only 15 miles from Manchester (and within travelling distance of Liverpool, Leeds, Bolton, Blackburn, Oldham, Bury etc) it could draw 50,000 fans a game if it rose to the highest performance level. It's unlikely but feasible that such a club could from the depths of its current situation to European Champions in say 10 seasons. Many an FM/CM/SaaP fan will have done it on their PCs

Apart from a couple of clubs like Portsmouth, Norwich etc which are in the remoter regions almost any club in England with the right on-field and financial success can become a "big" club. "Big" clubs in the past have been teams like Blackpool, Wolves, Nottingham Forest etc.

This weekend FC Utd of Manchester, the club formed by the Man Utd fans since Glazer's takeover, play their first ever match. It is theoretically possible that this club could rise to the very top of the European game form it's current position in England's ninth league. I look forward to a European Champion's League Final between Wimbledon AFC and FC Utd of Manchester

But I think a European league will eventually come. It will be painful but it will happen and it may be the limitation in total income into football that does it, rather than millions pumped in, as the "big" clubs seek greater income to avoid the limitation.

[Galaxy]

How would a European Super League work?

[Desnudo]

Rich clubs have been around for years. Real Madrid for example. They don't get the ink because they aren't perceived as nouveau and have accumulated their expensive players over a longer duration.

I think the thing with soccer is that there is way more talent than mega-wealthy teams. And it sometimes takes a while for talent to be spotted. Which means well coached teams like Porto can win the Champions League.

I think the problem of excessive spending is much more of an issue with a sport like baseball, where the top tier player pool is very small.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Using Abramovic to illustrate the way things are going is flawed. There's not many of his ilk around - Glazer had to borrow $1 billion of the $1.5 billion he paid for Man Utd to buy it out. He's not about to pump money into the club the way Abramovic did nor is any other owner.

Smaller clubs do have the opportunity to succeed in European soccer because of a feature missing from his analysis - the close geographical proximity of clubs. This means that most clubs have a catchment area for fans that matches the biggest. I come from Rochdale - a town with a club that has the dubious history of never being relegated or promoted from England's lowest fully professional league - now known as Division Two but in fact England's fourth division. It currently pulls in about 4,000 fans a game but being only 15 miles from Manchester (and within travelling distance of Liverpool, Leeds, Bolton, Blackburn, Oldham, Bury etc) it could draw 50,000 fans a game if it rose to the highest performance level. It's unlikely but feasible that such a club could from the depths of its current situation to European Champions in say 10 seasons. Many an FM/CM/SaaP fan will have done it on their PCs

Apart from a couple of clubs like Portsmouth, Norwich etc which are in the remoter regions almost any club in England with the right on-field and financial success can become a "big" club. "Big" clubs in the past have been teams like Blackpool, Wolves, Nottingham Forest etc.

This weekend FC Utd of Manchester, the club formed by the Man Utd fans since Glazer's takeover, play their first ever match. It is theoretically possible that this club could rise to the very top of the European game form it's current position in England's ninth league. I look forward to a European Champion's League Final between Wimbledon AFC and FC Utd of Manchester

But I think a European league will eventually come. It will be painful but it will happen and it may be the limitation in total income into football that does it, rather than millions pumped in, as the "big" clubs seek greater income to avoid the limitation.

I think its less probably these days that a team will come up straight from Div 1 and win the Premiership in their first season up which was a definite possibility in the 'old days' before the Premiership and so much money entered the game, that being said its still possible for any team to make it 'big'.

In Italy I believe a manager has just retired who took a small provincial club from nowhere to being present in the Quarter finals of the Champions League despite limited funds and support (I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the team, but I know the achievement was amazing) - in England Wimbledon rose from semi-professional to a solid Premiership team in around a decade (and in the last couple of years look to be heading down just as fast) ... its harder to achieve now admittedly but is still possible, thats what makes football so appealing to fans.

As a personal example look at Brighton, we were a 'money club' around 20-30 years ago (think of a small scale Chelsea) - some bad seasons and a crooked chairman left us on the verge of bankruptcy and relegation to the conference around 10 years ago ... since then we've revived and against all odds managed to hold our position in the Championship last season DESPITE having a tiny ground (rented from the council, we don't currently own one) and a squad of under 20 players a fair few of which have been playing with the club when we were struggling in Division 2 (which shows the difference a manager and 'team spirit' can make to a players performance).

This season we'll be looking to survive by the skin of our teeth again, our main hope being that if we do then we'll finally get approval for our new ground from the local council - if we get this then there's every chance that in 5 years time we'll be climbing towards the Premiership again

[ice4277]

Also don't forget about Kaiserslautern; they won the Bundesliga back in the mid-90's in their first season in the top flight, and had a pretty solid run of successful seasons afterwards.