Think we are saying the same thing. Apologies if use of financial fair play term Meade it confusing. I meant financial fair play as in the advantage it has created for clubs that have bigger budgets as opposed to the smaller teams/markets and restrictions opposed to them. It has literally created the haves and the have nots. Itís impossible for mid level teams and smaller leagues to be able to literally compete. I would know because the team I followed (Panathinaikos from Greece) went from being a consistent 2nd round team in the UCL twenty years ago to literally in economic shambles as a result of these policies.
Agreed. For a long time I've been saying spending caps that are equal across the board should be implemented like in American sports and rugby and that teams should be rewarded
for finishing lower down. I know that brings in the possibility of teams tanking a season but, in my opinion, that's better than the same teams winning constantly.
As an example, implement a Ä500 million budget turnover a year which includes everything (yes I know this is huge but I'm not talking about being able to simply spend half a billion but it being turnover
Obviously some teams will be able to spend that and others not. But nothing is stopping a club being able
to spend it should rich benefactors come in or slowly work their way up to spending that.
And give more prize money to the teams that finish lower. So, we're almost certain to win the league this year. In this instance, I would give far more prize and tv revenue money to the team which finished 17th than us (not to 18th, 19th, 20th because that then would give them an unfair advantage in Serie B). That then allows them to build their squad more because they need to whereas logic says if we win the league, we have the best squad in the competition so we don't need to invest as much.
Sure the usual suspects would of course still dominate, it has ever been thus, but not to the level where they're basically tearing the leagues apart.
That also naturally means that teams in less fashionable leagues aren't going to get the same tv money etc. as in others. So, yes, Inter will always have that natural advantage over Panathinaikos. But there would also not be anything stopping someone saying "y'know, Athens is a cool place, there's a big expat Greek community in America, Australia etc. I can sell to and if I get the club competitive at the elite level, people from new markets will take an interest and start following us".
I think it's just really cowardly. It locks in a guaranteed berth for the big teams and shuts everyone out. Part of the fun of the Champions League is seeing a random team get a young star and then be on the level of these other teams. Like when De Bruyne broke out on Wolfsburg or even just seeing a team like Galatasaray being able to qualify so often against the odds. I like quirky nonsense like that and I can totally see where the appeal comes from, but this will just cut out a really interesting part of international soccer.
Frankly, the big teams should qualify every year. Without Germany (or Portugal and the rest of the big Italian teams), this is trash anyway.
Everyone should have to qualify every year. Inter are one of the biggest clubs in the world but if we're not good enough to qualify, tough s**t, we don't. As I said, I'm one of those whose club is in the mix for this league but I don't want to be in something simply because we're a fashionable name. It's utter nonsense.