This faaaacking time of year

comment by Striketeam7 - staying humble (U18109)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
It's veered off topic anyway. India was just an example, whether it's the best or not is neither here nor there.

The original point was that international breaks provide an opportunity for all the people worldwide who can't get to see football regularly to at least get to watch their national sides play a dozen or so times a year.

Mr Spoilt PL Fan up there doesn't give a sheet about anything other than his own viewing preferences, and thinks people around the world should be grateful for pouring money they don't have into the coffers of the world's richest clubs, and for the fixtures to be crammed together so his precious league doesn't get disrupted by all the meaningless matches he doesn't care about.

A Crystal Palace-Wolves should be way more important and interesting than an India-Pakistan or a Morocco-Algeria to the inhabitants of those countries. How could it be otherwise?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And my point still stands, these same fans who can apparently only watch when it’s free will be streaming the Prem anyway and prefer to watch that than their national sides play a shiete friendly.

You only have to look at the numbers pre season club friendlies draw all over the world to see where the real interest is.

Besides, you miss my other point, as have a lot on here, I’m not saying get rid of qualifying altogether, I’m saying condense it and fit it into a much smaller window - those fans will still get to watch their national sides - just in a smaller window and it allow the Prem to start and continue until seasons end without interruption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If quality is the only factor at play here, why do roughly double the number of people in India watch their domestic league also on subscription tv rather than the PL? Do you not wonder whether pricing might also be a factor there?

Your premise assumes by default that they will prefer to watch the 'quality' product every time, but it completely ignores not just the emotional bonds people build around football teams, but also the fact that those bonds tend to be even stronger when it comes to national sentiment.

My guess is that a larger proportion of the PL-watching population of South Korea follows Spurs compared to the PL-watching population of Thailand. I'd even hazard a guess that a higher proportion of Thai fans keep tabs on Leicester City than in most other countries. Why might that be?

If we're thinking quality alone, why even do you still watch Spurs every week, when it's self-evident that other sides play consistently better football?

As for the friendly attendances, it's obvious that the world's top clubs will attract interest virtually everywhere they go - but isn't that partly because they are very rare occasions, if not one-offs one-offs?

So if all those people abroad, according to you, were in fact getting PL footy every week, that doesn't automatically imply that they won't welcome the more exceptional occasions involving their national team, no matter how middling it might be, because of the strength of their emotional connection.

I think most people understand the need for international games outside of qualification ones, and i personally like the more competitive nature of the Nations League instead of far more meaningless friendlies. But this break in particular is so badly timed.

IMO It all boils down to an overloaded football calendar. Once european competitions start, there really isnt another week to squeeze games in. UCL/EL/ECL now runs in to Jan. PL has lost its mid season break

To me it seems odd that on the one hand we're eroding tradition like scrapping FA Cup replays etc while loading up the UCL with another round (or 2) of games, adding things like the Club World Cup to the one free summer in a 4 year cycle, along with the UEFA Nations League also having a mini summer tourno in June.

And lets be clear, the UEFA nations league isnt UEFA sitting down and thinking how can we give coaches more time with their players, how can we make friendlies more meaningful, how can we best protect players in an exhausting calendar, it's, how can we extract more money out of these games

That's the priority and the inconvenience and general annoyance at an international break weeks after a season has started does not even register as a concern with the decision makers. There's no flexibility to have more compact international meets because if there is a gap its stuffed with some other thing that makes UEFA/FIFA more money


I think there will come a time soon when players will start to push back. Yes they are handsomely rewarded but the system is being milked hard by every one.

@Devonshire

The fixture overload is definitely a problem - I'm just in two minds over lightening up the calendar at the expense of internationals.

In the long term, I can see the big leagues allowing clubs bigger squads to cope with the expanded fixture list, and I wouldn't be at all surprised either if the PL, Liga and Serie A following the Bundesliga's lead and cutting the domestic top flight to 18 clubs. France has just gone that way too.

And while there's clearly a money motive in UEFA's and FIFA's expansion of the CL and Club World Cup, I'm not sure it was such a primary concern in the creation of the Nations League.

It's worth remembering a few points here.

On the one hand, fans of many of the bigger nations had been complaining for years about the number of friendlies, the uncompetitive processions in qualifying against the minnows, and the fact that they barely got to play other big teams in official competitions outside of the major tournaments. On that side, then, there's a benefit to be had from reducing the number of friendlies and creating a competition where big teams play more meaningful games against teams of a similar calibre.

Secondly, it's also true also that every member association has a single vote, so the smaller nations can also wield significant power if and when they band together. From that perspective, they might actually lose out on the odd big-money game against the powerhouses, but the opportunity to play more often against other minnows also provides them with a sporting incentive that I'm sure is very welcome.

All in all, I think the Nations League is a pretty good solution for all involved, even if it isn't a big money spinner like the club competitions are.

No stakeholder wants to reduce their stake and ideally they want to increase it. PL is set @ 20 teams and will never reduce that. UEFA and FIFA pushing the boundaries now with expanded events. Bigger WC, Club WC, UEFA Nations League, bigger UCL, EL, ECL...on and on

These bodies say one thing but mean another. Expanding these competitions "broadens it out to other, smaller associations and clubs", but that aint the driving force, more games = more money is the motive.

WC in Qatar to "take football to new parts of the world and expand the game"...yeah right. Highest bidder won!

Same for Saudi - almost certain to get the 2034 WC...so will be the 2nd Middle East WC in 4 cycles - S.America, Russia, Middle East, USA, Europe, Middle East.

Their motives are clear!

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - staying humble (U18109)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
It's veered off topic anyway. India was just an example, whether it's the best or not is neither here nor there.

The original point was that international breaks provide an opportunity for all the people worldwide who can't get to see football regularly to at least get to watch their national sides play a dozen or so times a year.

Mr Spoilt PL Fan up there doesn't give a sheet about anything other than his own viewing preferences, and thinks people around the world should be grateful for pouring money they don't have into the coffers of the world's richest clubs, and for the fixtures to be crammed together so his precious league doesn't get disrupted by all the meaningless matches he doesn't care about.

A Crystal Palace-Wolves should be way more important and interesting than an India-Pakistan or a Morocco-Algeria to the inhabitants of those countries. How could it be otherwise?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And my point still stands, these same fans who can apparently only watch when it’s free will be streaming the Prem anyway and prefer to watch that than their national sides play a shiete friendly.

You only have to look at the numbers pre season club friendlies draw all over the world to see where the real interest is.

Besides, you miss my other point, as have a lot on here, I’m not saying get rid of qualifying altogether, I’m saying condense it and fit it into a much smaller window - those fans will still get to watch their national sides - just in a smaller window and it allow the Prem to start and continue until seasons end without interruption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If quality is the only factor at play here, why do roughly double the number of people in India watch their domestic league also on subscription tv rather than the PL? Do you not wonder whether pricing might also be a factor there?

Your premise assumes by default that they will prefer to watch the 'quality' product every time, but it completely ignores not just the emotional bonds people build around football teams, but also the fact that those bonds tend to be even stronger when it comes to national sentiment.

My guess is that a larger proportion of the PL-watching population of South Korea follows Spurs compared to the PL-watching population of Thailand. I'd even hazard a guess that a higher proportion of Thai fans keep tabs on Leicester City than in most other countries. Why might that be?

If we're thinking quality alone, why even do you still watch Spurs every week, when it's self-evident that other sides play consistently better football?

As for the friendly attendances, it's obvious that the world's top clubs will attract interest virtually everywhere they go - but isn't that partly because they are very rare occasions, if not one-offs one-offs?

So if all those people abroad, according to you, were in fact getting PL footy every week, that doesn't automatically imply that they won't welcome the more exceptional occasions involving their national team, no matter how middling it might be, because of the strength of their emotional connection.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve never said it all about quality, but the appeal of the Prem is multitude - quality football, tribalism, soap opera stories, individual players as well as teams, nostalgia.

The product is unbelievable as a package

International friendlies on the other hand…….

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 30 minutes ago
No stakeholder wants to reduce their stake and ideally they want to increase it. PL is set @ 20 teams and will never reduce that. UEFA and FIFA pushing the boundaries now with expanded events. Bigger WC, Club WC, UEFA Nations League, bigger UCL, EL, ECL...on and on

These bodies say one thing but mean another. Expanding these competitions "broadens it out to other, smaller associations and clubs", but that aint the driving force, more games = more money is the motive.

WC in Qatar to "take football to new parts of the world and expand the game"...yeah right. Highest bidder won!

Same for Saudi - almost certain to get the 2034 WC...so will be the 2nd Middle East WC in 4 cycles - S.America, Russia, Middle East, USA, Europe, Middle East.

Their motives are clear!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

It’s got nothing to do with giving fans in India the chance to watch their national football team for free and everything to do with money - that’s why a club World Cup is coming in and we’ve had world cups in Russia/Qatar and soon Saudi - they want that oil money

The problem they have is beyond the big finals their product is schitt on a stick and most don’t want to watch it - viewing figures are in the bin for international friendlies in Europe, it’s just shiete.

And the nations league is a stalking horse for the Euros to be played every 2 years - mark my words, they will up it to 8 teams making the final in the next couple of iterations

comment by Striketeam7 - staying humble (U18109)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 30 minutes ago
No stakeholder wants to reduce their stake and ideally they want to increase it. PL is set @ 20 teams and will never reduce that. UEFA and FIFA pushing the boundaries now with expanded events. Bigger WC, Club WC, UEFA Nations League, bigger UCL, EL, ECL...on and on

These bodies say one thing but mean another. Expanding these competitions "broadens it out to other, smaller associations and clubs", but that aint the driving force, more games = more money is the motive.

WC in Qatar to "take football to new parts of the world and expand the game"...yeah right. Highest bidder won!

Same for Saudi - almost certain to get the 2034 WC...so will be the 2nd Middle East WC in 4 cycles - S.America, Russia, Middle East, USA, Europe, Middle East.

Their motives are clear!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

It’s got nothing to do with giving fans in India the chance to watch their national football team for free and everything to do with money - that’s why a club World Cup is coming in and we’ve had world cups in Russia/Qatar and soon Saudi - they want that oil money

The problem they have is beyond the big finals their product is schitt on a stick and most don’t want to watch it - viewing figures are in the bin for international friendlies in Europe, it’s just shiete.

And the nations league is a stalking horse for the Euros to be played every 2 years - mark my words, they will up it to 8 teams making the final in the next couple of iterations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So? PL footy is boring these days, it’s just money that’s all that matters. I’d prefer a shorter pl season and a longer international tourney. Probably one of a few on that, but I really do find the PL quite boring these days, and just cos we are shiiiit if it’s fixtures then scrap pl teams from playing in the league cup

i think Nations League shud b use 4 wurld cup qualifucation n all continentul turnyments (copa america/euros/acorn etc) shud b scrapped

also think domestic leagues shud b 16 teams n season end inapril nthen hold the CL/europa as turnyment

to offen we sea teams qualify 4 CL one season n neckessed season when they r innit is a compleatly diffrent team with diffrent coach n players. Bologna a eggsample

much phew!rr games tho sough wonet eber happen