2020-21 Premier League thread
- Thread starter Thus Spoke Mainer
- Start date
Interesting take here in relation to CFB.
ftw.usatoday.com
Creation of a European super league in soccer could be precursor for college football evolution
More money shared between fewer teams? Sounds like a plan.
ftw.usatoday.com
Not sure this link will work. This article lays it all out.
https://theathletic.com/2527261/202...-and-threats-that-shook-football-to-its-core/
https://theathletic.com/2527261/202...-and-threats-that-shook-football-to-its-core/
Re: Arsenal
It felt fitting that the announcement of the European Super League should come on the day Arsenal toiled to a 1-1 home draw with relegation candidates Fulham.
Arsenal are emblematic of much that is absurd about this proposed Super League: the ninth-best team in England (10th best if Leeds beat Liverpool tonight), undeservedly granted a seat at Europe’s top table.
They stand to benefit more than most from the formation of a Super League. Right now they are not, on merit, a Champions League club. Their team is not good enough, and their executive structure and ownership are ultimately responsible for that underachievement. Admittance to this Super League would be a Get Out Of Jail Free card for a badly-run club, a rope ladder to rescue Arsenal from mediocrity.
Arsenal’s trajectory has seen them go from Champions League to Europa League to the possibility of no European football whatsoever next season. They seem incapable of halting that decline on the pitch, so have had to arrest it via clandestine meetings with other breakaway clubs. They are so afraid of their capacity to underwhelm, they have sought to insulate themselves against further demotion.
It is no wonder Arsenal fear competition so much when they are so incompetent.
Josh and Stan Kroenke have been silent so far on the Super League plans (Photo: David Price/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)
Of all the teams who’ve signed up for this Super League, the supporters of Arsenal arguably have most to be concerned about.
Arsenal have shown themselves to be a club lacking in ambition, content with self-sustained decline. What other “leading European club”, as the Super League blurb describes them, would tolerate their underperformance over the last two Premier League seasons? Imagine how that passivity might be exacerbated by guaranteed, exorbitant revenues. Until now, the lure of Champions League money has been the Kroenkes’ only real incentive for success. Without that, how might Arsenal be allowed to drift?
Before the weekend, Arsenal fans were looking forward to the prospect of a Europa League semi-final. They are just three matches away from winning a European trophy for just the third time in club history, and with it securing the bonus of Champions League qualification. For a club languishing in mid-table domestically, it has felt like a precious shortcut to salvation — but crucially, it would still be one earned on a degree of sporting merit. Now those fixtures feel stripped of meaning, stripped of significance. If the Super League gets green-lit, Arsenal can play out the rest of this season content that none of it really matters — a windfall is on the way irrespective of their performance in other competitions.
Arsenal’s high points in Europe — the 1969-70 Fairs Cup, the 1993-94 Cup Winners’ Cup, their appearance in the 2005-06 Champions League final — meant so much because they were earned. If this plan proceeds, they will effectively grant themselves an annual bye into European football. There will be plenty of money, but no value. A competition that isn’t based on merit is not a competition.
Arguably the most disappointing aspect of this has been the poor quality of Arsenal’s communication with their fans.
Chief executive Vinai Venkatesham had been due to hold a fans’ forum event with supporters this week. That has now been cancelled. When the club put out their statement to announce they were joining the Super League as a founding member, there was not a single quote from Venkatesham, the board or the ownership. Instead, Arsenal hid behind generic comments from the likes of Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, Andrea Agnelli of Juventus and Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer.
For Arsenal to not volunteer a spokesperson of their own was a classless, gutless move — one that treats the club’s supporters with contempt.
The Arsenal owners’ disinclination to speak up has, in the past, been framed as a desire not to unnecessarily interfere. Here, it seems far worse. Sooner or later, the club’s chief executive — or perhaps even more cruelly, manager Mikel Arteta — will be wheeled out to recite the party line. It is clear, however, that they are not the decision-makers here. It is Arsenal’s owners who have brought them to his point, who have delivered this latest blow to the relationship between supporters and club.
This has been a difficult year to watch Arsenal.
The football has often been turgid, and off the pitch, supporters have had to tolerate redundancies and cost-cutting. Arsenal negotiated a pay-off for mascot Gunnersaurus as plans were hatched for the Super League. In the absence of fans because of the pandemic restrictions, the football has often felt soulless — now more so than ever.
Many sections of the club’s support are outraged at this move.
Supporters groups have already followed their Liverpool counterparts’ lead and asked for banners hanging inside the Emirates Stadium to be taken down. Others have asked for family plaques to be removed from the mosaic arrangements outside the ground.
Perhaps legal difficulties will mean the Super League doesn’t go ahead. Whatever happens, anger will inevitably dissipate and many supporters will continue to follow their club. They are effectively a captive audience, unable to divorce themselves from the team of their heart. Arsenal’s owners are counting on as much.
If you are prepared to set sporting principles aside and evaluate this from purely a business perspective, you can understand why Arsenal’s owners felt they needed to be on board this train. The timing is also critical. A Super League may have been inevitable, but given Arsenal’s underperformance, their inclusion was perhaps not. If this conversation was happening in five years, would they still be invited to the dance? Arsenal have jumped at the chance while it was still available to them.
This move is not entirely a break from tradition. Arsenal have used their status and influence to leapfrog obstacles in this fashion before.
In 1914-15, they finished just fifth in the Second Division, but were promoted to an expanded First Division for reasons of history over merit, with chairman Sir Henry Norris arguing Arsenal should be recognised for their “long service to league football”.
In that instance, Arsenal were promoted at the expense of Tottenham. This time, they’re included alongside them.
The fact that this Super League is comprised of “12 of Europe’s leading football clubs”, one of whom last won their domestic league title in 1961, exposes this facade of a competition for what it is: one driven purely by greed rather than merit.
From a business perspective, Arsenal’s inclusion in the Super League is a coup. From a sporting perspective, frankly, it is an embarrassment.
It felt fitting that the announcement of the European Super League should come on the day Arsenal toiled to a 1-1 home draw with relegation candidates Fulham.
Arsenal are emblematic of much that is absurd about this proposed Super League: the ninth-best team in England (10th best if Leeds beat Liverpool tonight), undeservedly granted a seat at Europe’s top table.
They stand to benefit more than most from the formation of a Super League. Right now they are not, on merit, a Champions League club. Their team is not good enough, and their executive structure and ownership are ultimately responsible for that underachievement. Admittance to this Super League would be a Get Out Of Jail Free card for a badly-run club, a rope ladder to rescue Arsenal from mediocrity.
Arsenal’s trajectory has seen them go from Champions League to Europa League to the possibility of no European football whatsoever next season. They seem incapable of halting that decline on the pitch, so have had to arrest it via clandestine meetings with other breakaway clubs. They are so afraid of their capacity to underwhelm, they have sought to insulate themselves against further demotion.
It is no wonder Arsenal fear competition so much when they are so incompetent.
Josh and Stan Kroenke have been silent so far on the Super League plans (Photo: David Price/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)
Of all the teams who’ve signed up for this Super League, the supporters of Arsenal arguably have most to be concerned about.
Arsenal have shown themselves to be a club lacking in ambition, content with self-sustained decline. What other “leading European club”, as the Super League blurb describes them, would tolerate their underperformance over the last two Premier League seasons? Imagine how that passivity might be exacerbated by guaranteed, exorbitant revenues. Until now, the lure of Champions League money has been the Kroenkes’ only real incentive for success. Without that, how might Arsenal be allowed to drift?
Before the weekend, Arsenal fans were looking forward to the prospect of a Europa League semi-final. They are just three matches away from winning a European trophy for just the third time in club history, and with it securing the bonus of Champions League qualification. For a club languishing in mid-table domestically, it has felt like a precious shortcut to salvation — but crucially, it would still be one earned on a degree of sporting merit. Now those fixtures feel stripped of meaning, stripped of significance. If the Super League gets green-lit, Arsenal can play out the rest of this season content that none of it really matters — a windfall is on the way irrespective of their performance in other competitions.
Arsenal’s high points in Europe — the 1969-70 Fairs Cup, the 1993-94 Cup Winners’ Cup, their appearance in the 2005-06 Champions League final — meant so much because they were earned. If this plan proceeds, they will effectively grant themselves an annual bye into European football. There will be plenty of money, but no value. A competition that isn’t based on merit is not a competition.
Arguably the most disappointing aspect of this has been the poor quality of Arsenal’s communication with their fans.
Chief executive Vinai Venkatesham had been due to hold a fans’ forum event with supporters this week. That has now been cancelled. When the club put out their statement to announce they were joining the Super League as a founding member, there was not a single quote from Venkatesham, the board or the ownership. Instead, Arsenal hid behind generic comments from the likes of Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, Andrea Agnelli of Juventus and Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer.
For Arsenal to not volunteer a spokesperson of their own was a classless, gutless move — one that treats the club’s supporters with contempt.
The Arsenal owners’ disinclination to speak up has, in the past, been framed as a desire not to unnecessarily interfere. Here, it seems far worse. Sooner or later, the club’s chief executive — or perhaps even more cruelly, manager Mikel Arteta — will be wheeled out to recite the party line. It is clear, however, that they are not the decision-makers here. It is Arsenal’s owners who have brought them to his point, who have delivered this latest blow to the relationship between supporters and club.
This has been a difficult year to watch Arsenal.
The football has often been turgid, and off the pitch, supporters have had to tolerate redundancies and cost-cutting. Arsenal negotiated a pay-off for mascot Gunnersaurus as plans were hatched for the Super League. In the absence of fans because of the pandemic restrictions, the football has often felt soulless — now more so than ever.
Many sections of the club’s support are outraged at this move.
Supporters groups have already followed their Liverpool counterparts’ lead and asked for banners hanging inside the Emirates Stadium to be taken down. Others have asked for family plaques to be removed from the mosaic arrangements outside the ground.
Perhaps legal difficulties will mean the Super League doesn’t go ahead. Whatever happens, anger will inevitably dissipate and many supporters will continue to follow their club. They are effectively a captive audience, unable to divorce themselves from the team of their heart. Arsenal’s owners are counting on as much.
If you are prepared to set sporting principles aside and evaluate this from purely a business perspective, you can understand why Arsenal’s owners felt they needed to be on board this train. The timing is also critical. A Super League may have been inevitable, but given Arsenal’s underperformance, their inclusion was perhaps not. If this conversation was happening in five years, would they still be invited to the dance? Arsenal have jumped at the chance while it was still available to them.
This move is not entirely a break from tradition. Arsenal have used their status and influence to leapfrog obstacles in this fashion before.
In 1914-15, they finished just fifth in the Second Division, but were promoted to an expanded First Division for reasons of history over merit, with chairman Sir Henry Norris arguing Arsenal should be recognised for their “long service to league football”.
In that instance, Arsenal were promoted at the expense of Tottenham. This time, they’re included alongside them.
The fact that this Super League is comprised of “12 of Europe’s leading football clubs”, one of whom last won their domestic league title in 1961, exposes this facade of a competition for what it is: one driven purely by greed rather than merit.
From a business perspective, Arsenal’s inclusion in the Super League is a coup. From a sporting perspective, frankly, it is an embarrassment.
Re: Man City
Manchester City fans have come to think of themselves as outsiders. That is something the club have embraced, too.
Over the past couple of years, as City’s war against UEFA and its financial fair play (FFP) regulations came to a head, the arguments were spelt out.
Namely, that FFP was cooked up by a cabal of elite clubs desperately trying to protect their status at the top of world football, to the exclusion of the likes of City, Paris Saint-Germain and, those clubs argued, others who may now have the backing and wherewithal to break up the game’s old hegemony.
There was understandable outrage as clubs including Bayern Munich and Juventus were allowed to enter into cosy deals with sponsors who have very close ties to board members (Juventus’ auto-giant partners Fiat are controlled by the Agnelli family, who are the Turin side’s majority owners), and only last month the European Union found that Spain’s big two of Barcelona and Real Madrid have benefited from state aid for three decades.
City wondered why there was so much attention and fury focused on them while all this was going on.
The club were stunned when nine of their domestic rivals wrote to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to argue City should be banned from European competition while they were investigated for alleged financial irregularities. Those clubs were Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Chelsea, Leicester, Wolves, Newcastle and Burnley, and Pep Guardiola took his opportunity to round on them when City had their ban overturned.
City fans loved that, of course, just as they put their faith in chief executive Ferran Soriano and chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak when they stood up for the club during UEFA’s proceedings.
And even in the autumn, with the CAS verdict in the past, fans were disgusted yet delighted with leaked plans for a new breakaway league. Disgusted because it was from the same playbook as FFP’s introduction, the brainchild of increasingly irrelevant clubs fighting to cling to power. Delighted, though, that they were not involved in talks. It was the Americans. It was United and Liverpool up to their old tricks.
The idea was met with universal disapproval, went away quite quickly and City fans were happy to have been well away from it, with rumours that they weren’t even invited anyway. That was perfect.
But now the European Super League is firmly on the agenda once again. Even when Champions League reforms looked a shoo-in (and they still might be), the movers and shakers behind this most controversial of plans were biding their time, doing their market research, putting the money in place, getting support.
Andrea Agnelli, of Juventus and Fiat, is one of the brains behind it. He was driving those Champions League reforms, but on the night of the Super League’s belated announcement, he quit his role as president of the European Club Association, the only recognised body representing clubs that UEFA recognises. He’s been described as a “snake” by those on the other side.
Florentino Perez, the Real Madrid supremo (has that word ever been more apt?), is the League’s chairman. As well as Agnelli, Manchester United’s co-chairman Joel Glazer is a vice-president. It’s been reported that Liverpool’s John W Henry and Arsenal’s Stan Kroenke have the same positions.
No wonder, then, that City fans feel so betrayed. It must be said that so many supporters of all the clubs involved are against the idea, united in their revulsion that these clubs now get to decide who can enter their new league, certain that endless matches between Europe’s top sides will soon become dull, and that the huge financial benefits will further skew competition in domestic leagues anyway.
It’s just that City’s fans have something else to consider now: their decision-makers have thrown in their lot with all of the predators that wanted to close them out in the first place.
So much for the club’s stance against the so-called “Hateful Eight”, which became a “Nasty Nine” when Newcastle joined in, or the idea that they have been fighting inequalities in European football.
Now City are big enough and attractive enough to be part of the elite, they are only too willing to pull up the drawbridge on everybody else. They are, until we hear otherwise at least, hypocrites.
We haven’t heard from them, though, because nobody involved in any of this has yet come forward to explain what they aim to achieve. The rest of us (from fans to media to employees at these clubs, including managers and players) are piecing things together as best we can.
Title-bound City were not closely involved in those talks last year, and it is understood that they only became involved in this latest plan after discussions over the past few days.
It has been reported that they and Chelsea were effectively backed into a corner at the end of last week, effectively offered the opportunity to jump on board or be left behind. Their desire to avoid the latter, to cling to the power they have accrued over the past decade, seems to have outweighed their previous arguments about the might of the “established elite”.
We don’t know for sure though, because City haven’t shed any light on it yet.
After the story broke in the afternoon, the clubs involved, and those who had been building websites and social media accounts for months, were in breathless talks about when best to launch, if at all, at their central London HQ in Millbank, on the River Thames. The English clubs were the most cautious.
A statement was finally published late on Sunday night and the clubs followed suit. What sums up the outrage for City fans — and Liverpool’s, in this case — is that their statement was effectively a copy-and-paste job, featuring quotes from Manchester United’s Joel Glazer but no City (or Liverpool) representative.
Twelve hours later and there has been nothing else.
Soriano emailed staff before midnight on Sunday pointing them in the direction of the statement and said that the “objective is to improve the quality and intensity of competition”. He also invited them to raise any questions they have at the next company meeting.
There must be a reason why none of the clubs or other people associated with the league are talking yet. That’s one question.
There is a long list of others. What about the domestic leagues? What about the Champions League? When will this start? Will it ever actually start? Is this all a game?
But perhaps most importantly, and particularly for the City fans who felt that their club was different, they just want to know why.
Manchester City fans have come to think of themselves as outsiders. That is something the club have embraced, too.
Over the past couple of years, as City’s war against UEFA and its financial fair play (FFP) regulations came to a head, the arguments were spelt out.
Namely, that FFP was cooked up by a cabal of elite clubs desperately trying to protect their status at the top of world football, to the exclusion of the likes of City, Paris Saint-Germain and, those clubs argued, others who may now have the backing and wherewithal to break up the game’s old hegemony.
There was understandable outrage as clubs including Bayern Munich and Juventus were allowed to enter into cosy deals with sponsors who have very close ties to board members (Juventus’ auto-giant partners Fiat are controlled by the Agnelli family, who are the Turin side’s majority owners), and only last month the European Union found that Spain’s big two of Barcelona and Real Madrid have benefited from state aid for three decades.
City wondered why there was so much attention and fury focused on them while all this was going on.
The club were stunned when nine of their domestic rivals wrote to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to argue City should be banned from European competition while they were investigated for alleged financial irregularities. Those clubs were Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Chelsea, Leicester, Wolves, Newcastle and Burnley, and Pep Guardiola took his opportunity to round on them when City had their ban overturned.
City fans loved that, of course, just as they put their faith in chief executive Ferran Soriano and chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak when they stood up for the club during UEFA’s proceedings.
And even in the autumn, with the CAS verdict in the past, fans were disgusted yet delighted with leaked plans for a new breakaway league. Disgusted because it was from the same playbook as FFP’s introduction, the brainchild of increasingly irrelevant clubs fighting to cling to power. Delighted, though, that they were not involved in talks. It was the Americans. It was United and Liverpool up to their old tricks.
The idea was met with universal disapproval, went away quite quickly and City fans were happy to have been well away from it, with rumours that they weren’t even invited anyway. That was perfect.
But now the European Super League is firmly on the agenda once again. Even when Champions League reforms looked a shoo-in (and they still might be), the movers and shakers behind this most controversial of plans were biding their time, doing their market research, putting the money in place, getting support.
Andrea Agnelli, of Juventus and Fiat, is one of the brains behind it. He was driving those Champions League reforms, but on the night of the Super League’s belated announcement, he quit his role as president of the European Club Association, the only recognised body representing clubs that UEFA recognises. He’s been described as a “snake” by those on the other side.
Florentino Perez, the Real Madrid supremo (has that word ever been more apt?), is the League’s chairman. As well as Agnelli, Manchester United’s co-chairman Joel Glazer is a vice-president. It’s been reported that Liverpool’s John W Henry and Arsenal’s Stan Kroenke have the same positions.
No wonder, then, that City fans feel so betrayed. It must be said that so many supporters of all the clubs involved are against the idea, united in their revulsion that these clubs now get to decide who can enter their new league, certain that endless matches between Europe’s top sides will soon become dull, and that the huge financial benefits will further skew competition in domestic leagues anyway.
It’s just that City’s fans have something else to consider now: their decision-makers have thrown in their lot with all of the predators that wanted to close them out in the first place.
So much for the club’s stance against the so-called “Hateful Eight”, which became a “Nasty Nine” when Newcastle joined in, or the idea that they have been fighting inequalities in European football.
Now City are big enough and attractive enough to be part of the elite, they are only too willing to pull up the drawbridge on everybody else. They are, until we hear otherwise at least, hypocrites.
We haven’t heard from them, though, because nobody involved in any of this has yet come forward to explain what they aim to achieve. The rest of us (from fans to media to employees at these clubs, including managers and players) are piecing things together as best we can.
Title-bound City were not closely involved in those talks last year, and it is understood that they only became involved in this latest plan after discussions over the past few days.
It has been reported that they and Chelsea were effectively backed into a corner at the end of last week, effectively offered the opportunity to jump on board or be left behind. Their desire to avoid the latter, to cling to the power they have accrued over the past decade, seems to have outweighed their previous arguments about the might of the “established elite”.
We don’t know for sure though, because City haven’t shed any light on it yet.
After the story broke in the afternoon, the clubs involved, and those who had been building websites and social media accounts for months, were in breathless talks about when best to launch, if at all, at their central London HQ in Millbank, on the River Thames. The English clubs were the most cautious.
A statement was finally published late on Sunday night and the clubs followed suit. What sums up the outrage for City fans — and Liverpool’s, in this case — is that their statement was effectively a copy-and-paste job, featuring quotes from Manchester United’s Joel Glazer but no City (or Liverpool) representative.
Twelve hours later and there has been nothing else.
Soriano emailed staff before midnight on Sunday pointing them in the direction of the statement and said that the “objective is to improve the quality and intensity of competition”. He also invited them to raise any questions they have at the next company meeting.
There must be a reason why none of the clubs or other people associated with the league are talking yet. That’s one question.
There is a long list of others. What about the domestic leagues? What about the Champions League? When will this start? Will it ever actually start? Is this all a game?
But perhaps most importantly, and particularly for the City fans who felt that their club was different, they just want to know why.
Re: Arsenal
It felt fitting that the announcement of the European Super League should come on the day Arsenal toiled to a 1-1 home draw with relegation candidates Fulham.
Arsenal are emblematic of much that is absurd about this proposed Super League: the ninth-best team in England (10th best if Leeds beat Liverpool tonight), undeservedly granted a seat at Europe’s top table.
They stand to benefit more than most from the formation of a Super League. Right now they are not, on merit, a Champions League club. Their team is not good enough, and their executive structure and ownership are ultimately responsible for that underachievement. Admittance to this Super League would be a Get Out Of Jail Free card for a badly-run club, a rope ladder to rescue Arsenal from mediocrity.
Arsenal’s trajectory has seen them go from Champions League to Europa League to the possibility of no European football whatsoever next season. They seem incapable of halting that decline on the pitch, so have had to arrest it via clandestine meetings with other breakaway clubs. They are so afraid of their capacity to underwhelm, they have sought to insulate themselves against further demotion.
It is no wonder Arsenal fear competition so much when they are so incompetent.
Josh and Stan Kroenke have been silent so far on the Super League plans (Photo: David Price/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)
Of all the teams who’ve signed up for this Super League, the supporters of Arsenal arguably have most to be concerned about.
Arsenal have shown themselves to be a club lacking in ambition, content with self-sustained decline. What other “leading European club”, as the Super League blurb describes them, would tolerate their underperformance over the last two Premier League seasons? Imagine how that passivity might be exacerbated by guaranteed, exorbitant revenues. Until now, the lure of Champions League money has been the Kroenkes’ only real incentive for success. Without that, how might Arsenal be allowed to drift?
Before the weekend, Arsenal fans were looking forward to the prospect of a Europa League semi-final. They are just three matches away from winning a European trophy for just the third time in club history, and with it securing the bonus of Champions League qualification. For a club languishing in mid-table domestically, it has felt like a precious shortcut to salvation — but crucially, it would still be one earned on a degree of sporting merit. Now those fixtures feel stripped of meaning, stripped of significance. If the Super League gets green-lit, Arsenal can play out the rest of this season content that none of it really matters — a windfall is on the way irrespective of their performance in other competitions.
Arsenal’s high points in Europe — the 1969-70 Fairs Cup, the 1993-94 Cup Winners’ Cup, their appearance in the 2005-06 Champions League final — meant so much because they were earned. If this plan proceeds, they will effectively grant themselves an annual bye into European football. There will be plenty of money, but no value. A competition that isn’t based on merit is not a competition.
Arguably the most disappointing aspect of this has been the poor quality of Arsenal’s communication with their fans.
Chief executive Vinai Venkatesham had been due to hold a fans’ forum event with supporters this week. That has now been cancelled. When the club put out their statement to announce they were joining the Super League as a founding member, there was not a single quote from Venkatesham, the board or the ownership. Instead, Arsenal hid behind generic comments from the likes of Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez, Andrea Agnelli of Juventus and Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer.
For Arsenal to not volunteer a spokesperson of their own was a classless, gutless move — one that treats the club’s supporters with contempt.
The Arsenal owners’ disinclination to speak up has, in the past, been framed as a desire not to unnecessarily interfere. Here, it seems far worse. Sooner or later, the club’s chief executive — or perhaps even more cruelly, manager Mikel Arteta — will be wheeled out to recite the party line. It is clear, however, that they are not the decision-makers here. It is Arsenal’s owners who have brought them to his point, who have delivered this latest blow to the relationship between supporters and club.
This has been a difficult year to watch Arsenal.
The football has often been turgid, and off the pitch, supporters have had to tolerate redundancies and cost-cutting. Arsenal negotiated a pay-off for mascot Gunnersaurus as plans were hatched for the Super League. In the absence of fans because of the pandemic restrictions, the football has often felt soulless — now more so than ever.
Many sections of the club’s support are outraged at this move.
Supporters groups have already followed their Liverpool counterparts’ lead and asked for banners hanging inside the Emirates Stadium to be taken down. Others have asked for family plaques to be removed from the mosaic arrangements outside the ground.
Perhaps legal difficulties will mean the Super League doesn’t go ahead. Whatever happens, anger will inevitably dissipate and many supporters will continue to follow their club. They are effectively a captive audience, unable to divorce themselves from the team of their heart. Arsenal’s owners are counting on as much.
If you are prepared to set sporting principles aside and evaluate this from purely a business perspective, you can understand why Arsenal’s owners felt they needed to be on board this train. The timing is also critical. A Super League may have been inevitable, but given Arsenal’s underperformance, their inclusion was perhaps not. If this conversation was happening in five years, would they still be invited to the dance? Arsenal have jumped at the chance while it was still available to them.
This move is not entirely a break from tradition. Arsenal have used their status and influence to leapfrog obstacles in this fashion before.
In 1914-15, they finished just fifth in the Second Division, but were promoted to an expanded First Division for reasons of history over merit, with chairman Sir Henry Norris arguing Arsenal should be recognised for their “long service to league football”.
In that instance, Arsenal were promoted at the expense of Tottenham. This time, they’re included alongside them.
The fact that this Super League is comprised of “12 of Europe’s leading football clubs”, one of whom last won their domestic league title in 1961, exposes this facade of a competition for what it is: one driven purely by greed rather than merit.
From a business perspective, Arsenal’s inclusion in the Super League is a coup. From a sporting perspective, frankly, it is an embarrassment.
Psssh, its a joke. But at least Arse won a damn title in the past 20 years. Spurs haven't one since 1961!
Freaking imposters.
If the FA were willing to destroy Leeds like they did for taxes, they should do the same to each and every one of these teams for this. Oddly enough, I think the fans of those teams might agree with it. It would destroy their value and hopefully force their green POS owners to sell.
Hopefully the beginning of the end of a bad idea. Does anyone actually like the idea of the ESL?
Seeing Barca too. Arsenal better not be the last one standing without a chair. Get out now, shouldn't have agreed to be in in the first place.
Super league dead. Man U Tottenham Arsenal Liverpool and Man City pull out.
UEFA threatened any player in the super league could not play for their home country in any competition.
As a BvB fan, just kill me now.
quite an eventful week with the disclosure of the super league, the fan reactions, and the about face by many of the owners of the teams slated for the super league.
Games on TV this weekend:
Saturday
7:30 am EDT: Liverpool vs. Newcastle United (Peacock)
12:30 pm EDT: West Ham vs. Chelsea (NBC)
3:00 pm EDT: Sheffield United vs. Brighton (Peacock)
Sunday
7:00 am EDT: Tottenham vs. Burnley (NBCSN)
9:00 am EDT: Leeds United vs. Man U (NBCSN)
2:00 pm EDT: Aston Villa vs. West Brom (Peacock)
I think that's all the broadcast games.
Games on TV this weekend:
Saturday
7:30 am EDT: Liverpool vs. Newcastle United (Peacock)
12:30 pm EDT: West Ham vs. Chelsea (NBC)
3:00 pm EDT: Sheffield United vs. Brighton (Peacock)
Sunday
7:00 am EDT: Tottenham vs. Burnley (NBCSN)
9:00 am EDT: Leeds United vs. Man U (NBCSN)
2:00 pm EDT: Aston Villa vs. West Brom (Peacock)
I think that's all the broadcast games.
Chelsea (55 points), West Ham (55), Tottenham (53), and Liverpool (53) are in a close fight for fourth place (Champions League placement). Tottenham has five matches remaining, the other three have six. It'll be well worth watching this finish. I see that Saturday's match between West Ham and Chelsea will be very important.
Tottenham has Man City in the Carabao Cup final Sunday at 11:30 am only on ESPN+
I'm sure I've said it before (probably in this thread), but I have an irrational hatred for the League Cup. Premier League is great, those successful clubs in the Champions League playing huge games are also great, and I love the FA Cup and everything it represents with giving those lower tier clubs shots to knock off the "big dogs". But WTF is the point of the League Cup? It's like having Duke or UNC, in addition to fighting for an ACC title and a National Championship, also play for the CBI Title on the side. With all of the issues with the number of fixtures these top teams have to play, why is this still a thing?
Carry on...
Actually, wouldn’t the EFL Cup be comparable to the NCAA tournament? The FA Cup would be comparable to a basketball tourney with all DI, DII, DIII as well as all NAIA & JuCo.
I compare the FA Cup to the NCAA tourney as those Round 3 fixtures remind me a lot of the 1st 2 days of the NCAA with the minnows trying to knock off those big teams.
Based on the lineups that they put out, the clubs obviously see the League Cup last in the pecking order, whereas no team is throwing out a "B" or "C" squad for an NCAA tournament game.
The FA cup is considered more prestigious than the EFL aka League Cup because it has been around much longer (1871 v 1960) and it pays out more (£2mil v £100k). I also think that the FA Cup winner is also given one of England’s slots in the Europa League, which could be important for a Championship or lower Premier team.
However, if you think any of the big teams take those early FA Cup games any more seriously than the early rounds of the EFL cup, you’re mistaken. The lineups are just as much as a joke as they are for the early rounds of the EFL, even if they are against another EPL team. For example, Liverpool’s ‘third round’ match against Everton. Klopp’s lineup had one player that appeared in 15 EPL games that year. The rest were players from their reserve team. Granted, they still beat Everton 1-0, but I guess Klopp was too worried about that slip 14pt lead to risk any legit players.
The biggest clubs view both competitions as a nuisance and basically use it as player development games. None of them take them seriously unless their scrubs get them into the semis. There’s the EPL title and the Champions League. Nothing else matters to the big clubs. Even the Europa League probably matters more to the top teams.
I still say that the EFL Cup is the equivalent to the NCAA DI tourney because it includes all of the professional teams in England. The top four levels on the English pyramid, EPL (1) and the EFL (2-4). The FA Cup includes teams from the top ten levels of the pyramid, the vast majority being amateur teams.
Man U - Leeds United was quite a battle. Lots of fouls, a number of cards, and also some excellent soccer. They left it all out on the field.
Final, 0-0
Final, 0-0
West Brom scores 2 minutes into the 2nd half to go up 2-1 on Aston Villa. West Brom GK cleared the ball well past midfield (halfway between midfield and the 18), and the AV defender fell down, so the WB attacker goes in for an uncontested shot. While you might see plays like that any weekend in youth leagues, you just don't expect to see it in the Premier League.
The game was 1-1 at the half, with both goals scored on PKs (2nd one very questionable).
The game was 1-1 at the half, with both goals scored on PKs (2nd one very questionable).
I was too disheartened to post the replay of the own goal by the Arsenal keeper on Friday, in a match Arsenal lost 1-0. It was probably LOL funny for anyone who isn’t a Gunners fan.
Horrible by Leno, however Xhaka did him no favors in defense on the lead up.
Yeah, Xhaka made two mistakes on that sequence. Those were the worst parts of the sequence, IMO.
Last edited:
ManU vs. Ars...I mean Villareal for the Europa.
Would have been amazing to see a final four of all English teams. Salt in the wound, Arsenal. Salt in the wound.
#KroenkeOut
Fulham-Burnley at 3 pm today. It should be a hard-fought match as Fulham is in 18th place and needs to beat Burnley to have a chance to avoid relegation. Burnley is in 17th place so they’re going to take this seriously as well.
Hoping that Antonee Robinson can hook on with another top flight European club. He had a solid season, and it’s not Fulham’s defense that’s to blame for heading back down.
What? No mention of the mighty Reds beating a team 2 - 0 on this past Saturday?
Don't be jealous!!
