Gundogan not a fan of CL new format

[ClockworkOrange]

You are working from the premise that wages have gone up in line with increased finances. I am working from the premise that wage increases have forced clubs to find extra cash, such as outside investment or several billions of debt. You think that the extra games will lead to players wanting more money, I think that players wanting more money is something that happens regardless of how many games they play and that is the driving factor behind more games being created.

For someone who wants sweeping changes, you are mighty reluctant to concede that players and their wages are the root cause of these issues and are the first people who would, by necessity, be targeted in your redistribution of wealth
. It is bizarre you see 4 games spread over a season as something worth the players complaining about, while agreeing with the fact their demands are the single biggest drain on finances.

It genuinely is as simple as telling them that if they want fewer games, they get less money. If they want more money, they need to justify it in real terms and in the absence of anything workable, that is more games.

Football wages rise in accordance to how much their clubs make, which is mainly a result of globalisation and satellite television. Television rights for the first five years of the EPL went for 191 million. In 2019 it was 5.136 billion.

Players wanting more money is something that happens anyway and which will continue to happen - perhaps more fervently - in the event of footballers being required to play more games. While this may have been one of the intentions of the formation for the Super League, unless there are strict(er) measures put in place by UEFA, it's hard to envisage a scenario whereby a club increases their revenue and decreases their revenue-to-wages ratio.

I'm fully aware that footballers' wages are obscenely high and will openly concede that they are the causes of some of these issues - not sure I'd said anything to the contrary, to be honest - but they're simply an indication of the current market rate which is predicated on the revenue that clubs receive as well as their initial outlay in signing that player - Neymar's weekly wage of 600,000 grand and his 222 million transfer fee - which PSG willingly paid - go hand in hand. Football clubs also obviously haggle with their own players when it comes to new deals, with both presumably coming to an outcome that satisfies both parties; I can't imagine City's recent contract offer to de Bruyne wasn't abnormally high to begin with.

The concerns over the new format also go beyond the players. Guardiola has said it'll lead to more injuries and fatigue, and poorer games into the bargain, and just this evening Klopp has queried how you can fit so many games into a domestic season. Given that last season his team were required to play two games on the exact same day to ease fixture congestion, it's not hard to see his point.

 

[Northampton_Loyalist]

Football wages rise in accordance to how much their clubs make, which is mainly a result of globalisation and satellite television. Television rights for the first five years of the EPL went for 191 million. In 2019 it was 5.136 billion.

Players wanting more money is something that happens anyway and which will continue to happen - perhaps more fervently - in the event of footballers being required to play more games. While this may have been one of the intentions of the formation for the Super League, unless there are strict(er) measures put in place by UEFA, it's hard to envisage a scenario whereby a club increases their revenue and decreases their revenue-to-wages ratio.

I'm fully aware that footballers' wages are obscenely high and will openly concede that they are the causes of some of these issues - not sure I'd said anything to the contrary, to be honest - but they're simply an indication of the current market rate which is predicated on the revenue that clubs receive as well as their initial outlay in signing that player - Neymar's weekly wage of 600,000 grand and his 222 million transfer fee - which PSG willingly paid - go hand in hand. Football clubs also obviously haggle with their own players when it comes to new deals, with both presumably coming to an outcome that satisfies both parties; I can't imagine City's recent contract offer to de Bruyne wasn't abnormally high to begin with.

The concerns over the new format also go beyond the players. Guardiola has said it'll lead to more injuries and fatigue, and poorer games into the bargain, and just this evening Klopp has queried how you can fit so many games into a domestic season. Given that last season his team were required to play two games on the exact same day to ease fixture congestion, it's not hard to see his point.

No, they do not. If they did, Barca, Real, Chelsea etc would not be billions in debt. Wages increase and clubs are left trying to bridge the gap. Again, the Spanish clubs literally told us this whgen the ESL fist appeared. The idea that players have been getting pay bumps in line with club income increases is plain wrong. Players have been getting ever more and more cash and clubs have been funding it through increased tv deals, investments into the clubs and most often, by simply going into debt.

 

[GavCo]

The format has been shit for decades now. Get rid of the seedings. Everyone starts in round 1, best team left standing at the end. No protection, no parachutes!

 

[Deep fried hamburger]

Clubs have enough players to rotate them I'd think

 

[ClockworkOrange]

No, they do not. If they did, Barca, Real, Chelsea etc would not be billions in debt. Wages increase and clubs are left trying to bridge the gap. Again, the Spanish clubs literally told us this whgen the ESL fist appeared. The idea that players have been getting pay bumps in line with club income increases is plain wrong. Players have been getting ever more and more cash and clubs have been funding it through increased tv deals, investments into the clubs and most often, by simply going into debt.

And why have players been receiving increased amounts of money? What justification do they have for asking for - and receiving - 250, 300 thousand a week? It's not that clubs need to react to these unanticipated for or unexpected wage demands; they're in a symbiotic relationship with the money coming into the club.

Let's look at a few years ago: EPL clubs' total revenue was 4.8 billion, up 6% from the year before.

Their combined wage expenditure also increased by 0.4 billion, up 4% from the year before.

There is a rise in wages dictated by the rise in total revenue. You seem to hypothesise that it's the other way around: that a rise in wages is what fuels the increase in total revenue.

Are you really suggesting that if total revenues decreased in football to pre-1992 levels that footballers' wages would remain at 2021 levels?