Evropski superklubovi i njihova superliga

[dragance]

Koga da privuku?? Sami, bez domaćeg takmicenja (osim možda u Španiji, ali to bi onda bila i suspenzija Španije iz UEFA i FIFA. Iz ostalih zemalja će privući kurac na biciklu.

[villiem]

4 minutes ago, goofs said:

Nece nista biti od ovoga naravno, ovo je nesto proforme da bi kao rezultat mogli da im rebnu neku kaznicu cisto da sledeci put ne budu tako poletni sa ovom idejom.

 

Juventus, Barsu i Real ako izbace iz UEFA takmicenja, oni ce napraviti nesto svoje. Sta i kako, ko zna, mozda bude corak ali mozda ih i usere pa im uspe, pa privuku i ostale velikane u kom slucaju je UEFA zavrsila sa svojim postojanjem. I verujem da su toga svesni.

 

Pa taj rat je upravo zavrsen, dobice kaznu ili ce ostati bez icega. Ovo sad cekamo na budale da uzmu digitron

[Meazza]

Da naprave takmicenje od tri tima? Bas i to cudo da vidim.

[nahbar]

Казнити их зестоко, па макар и прећи границу, односно ризиковати да их више нема у УЕФА такмичењима. Само три тима је у питању, ово је зицер ситуација да се покажу мишићи свима осталима

[*edited by mod]

Baš tako. Ako ih puste da palamude kako je ideja dobra samo eto da se malo upegla i sačeka trenutak ima ubrzo da se stvar otme kontroli. Ovako ili posipanje pepelom ili izbacivanje iz Evrope. Pa da se vidi ko kome više treba.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

[villiem]

jebmu jel zna neko sta pricaju spanci, to su veliki klubovi, ime su napravili na evropskim takmicenjima

da li ima slicnosti sa ovom bracom na ostrvu, sto su kao mi izasli na ulicu sa bakljama i nozevima

[Meazza]

 

5 minutes ago, villiem said:

jebmu jel zna neko sta pricaju spanci, to su veliki klubovi, ime su napravili na evropskim takmicenjima

da li ima slicnosti sa ovom bracom na ostrvu, sto su kao mi izasli na ulicu sa bakljama i nozevima

 

Nikakve slicnosti, dve potpuno drugacije fudbalske kulture. Navijaci Reala i Barselone su za Superligu. Dele se hashtagovi #CeferinOut, kukaju zato sto im prete, predstavljaju sebe kao zrtve, prozivaju sve fudbalere i trenere koji su se izjasnili protiv Superlige da su licemeri jer igraju za novac , ne veruju da su navijaci u Engleskoj i Nemackoj protiv Superlige vec kruze teorije zavere kako je sve to bilo namesteno, tipa kako je 40 placenika izaslo ispred Stamford Bridza, a ne navijaci Celsija. 

[mlatko]

Mogli bi da naprave u Monaku...? eto i četvrtog tima, veće obrtanje novca i to će za par godina možda i da proradi

Treba samo da se ne kvalifikuje za CL

[ljubicica]

https://sportske.net/vest/medjunarodni-fudbal/esl-i-dalje-opcija-infantino-igra-za-obe-strane-438865

Послато са SM-A515F помоћу Тапатока

[Jeremija]

 

[*edited by mod]

Real se hvali da je dobio UEFA, samo nisam skontao da li je to ono na španskom sudu ili nešto što je zapravo bitno?

[ljubicica]

https://sportske.net/vest/medjunarodni-fudbal/sastali-se-laporta-perez-i-anjeli-sta-mislite-koja-je-bila-glavna-tema-445176

Послато са SM-A515F помоћу Тапатока

[goofs]

superliga odjednom nije tako losa ideja

[MiddleClass]

https://www.vijesti.me/sport/fudbal/566438/sta-ovo-znaci-vlasnik-napolija-zeli-da-mijenja-fudbal-projektom-od-10-milijardi-eura

 

Mnogo bolji predlog. Krace domace lige, a vise utakmica u evro takmicenjima koja ce biti otvorena sa sve.

[Svarog]

nisu klubovi, već reprezentacije. ali mislim da pripada ovde iako se dotiče još nekoliko tema.

https://theathletic.com/2828360/2021/09/15/alexi-lalas-qatar-world-cup-fifa/ 

 

 

Quote

Alexi Lalas on hearing FIFA’s case for a World Cup every two years

 

It’s an idea that’s been floating around for quite some time now: what if FIFA, everybody’s favorite governing body, staged a World Cup every two years, instead of every four? And what if they made other changes – overhauling and streamlining the international calendar, for example, or aligning other major continental tournaments with each other?

FIFA is currently undertaking a feasibility study to examine all of those possibilities, and more. It’s led by former Arsenal head coach Arsene Wenger, who currently serves as the organization’s global head of football development; as part of the study, they presented some of their ideas to a group of “legends” in Doha, Qatar. Ronaldo (Fenomeno), Tim Cahill, Ryan Nelsen, Jared Borgetti, Roberto Carlos and a host of others sat and listened while FIFA tried to curry favor with all of them.

Among those players was also an American, Fox Sports commentator Alexi Lalas, a veteran of two World Cups and a fixture in the American game. Earlier this week, Lalas sat down for a 30-minute chat about his experience in Qatar. Lalas’ answers have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

 

So how did you get involved in all of this? 

It came about quickly. I think a week and a half before it actually happened, I got the call as to my availability. It didn’t take me long to say “yeah, this is pretty cool.” I’d never been to Qatar and obviously we (at Fox) are going there next year, so the curiosity of what that place is was part of the decision. I’d been on Zoom calls before with this group, but nothing this specific, that was bigger picture stuff. This all came about really quickly.

 

So why you? You have no current official affiliation with U.S. Soccer, obviously you are a former player but you’re a pundit now. Why do you think you were selected?

Because I’m fucking awesome, obviously.

 

Listen, I’m sure that has something to do with it in your mind but I don’t know if there are like 10 FIFA guys sitting around a darkened conference room table saying “get Alexi, he’s fucking awesome.”

Isn’t that a prerequisite? Isn’t that a box they check? I mean in any case, I think there are probably a couple of reasons they chose me. One, we’re dealing with the World Cup and I certainly am associated with the World Cup. I’m talking to you because of the ‘94 World Cup — as I always say, I lived the power of that tournament. Two, I’m in the media. They’re trying to get to people that talk about it, that think about it, people that have a voice, the current word would be, influencers? I don’t know if anybody listens to me, but that doesn’t stop me from talking. If and when I’m talking, I think FIFA wants me to have context of what’s going on and from their perspective, I would think that they’d want it to be positive in the way I talk about something like that.

There were no expectations, though — I wasn’t paid for it, of course I was a guest of FIFA and whoever is reading this piece should certainly factor that into anything I say, that would be the fair thing to do.

 

There were plenty of other players there, and it’s noteworthy that they were all retired and all of a certain generation. Why do you think they invited former players — a lot of guys who haven’t played in years — to weigh in on all of this instead of current players who are dealing with the current landscape of the game? 

Certainly this was not the only group they’ve reached out to. I think it would be helpful for FIFA to understand a more current mentality or viewpoint. Having said that, I’m sitting next to Tim Cahill, who probably travelled more than anybody in the room in his playing career given that he played for Australia. So someone like that certainly has a reference point as to the difficulties and challenges as far as travelling around. I have no idea though how many current players they’ve talked to about this — they’re the ones who are going to live it.

 

So you went to Qatar as a guest of FIFA; you made reference elsewhere to the accommodations being “first class all the way.” What are we talking about here, is it like a Scrooge McDuck diving bill-first into a pile of coins level of opulence? 

I mean, I was wined and dined, as to be expected. Some wonderful restaurants and a beautiful hotel. 

 

I have to ask, can you drink there? People seem to think you can’t drink there. Tell me you can drink there.

Man, remember when it all came out, that was the big concern? “Will I be able to drink?!” I can only tell you that, from my recent experience there, never once did it cross my mind that there wasn’t an alcoholic beverage within reach to be bought. It was just fine. It was everywhere. Don’t worry. The actual accommodations, though, where we had the meetings, I mean, it looked like the (United Nations.) Those little stick-style mics in a massive meeting room, you had translators behind darkened glass translating into any number of different languages.

 

Some real Doctor Strangelove stuff, huh?

It was very much like that. That was the aesthetic of it. In practice it was a bit more informal in the way it went. Most of it was presentations, speeches, powerpoint type of stuff; there was limited interaction with the actual participants. You want to let people make their case as to what’s going on. I made it very, very clear, I was one of the first ones to speak, that I was coming with an open mind, that I wanted to see the data, I wanted to see why Arsene Wenger and FIFA believe that this is the way to go. I also made it very very clear that I needed to get opposing viewpoints.

 

That’s interesting — FIFA sent Peter Schmeichel up after all of this and it basically sounded like every person in attendance was in love with every idea that had been presented.

That irritated me a little bit, in terms of how it was framed. Peter Schmeichel doesn’t speak for me or anybody else. Nobody was storming out of the room saying “this is the dumbest idea ever.” It’s much more relative to the fact that we all came with an open mind.

 

I have to tell you, when it comes to the two-year World Cup cycle, my attitude has always been geared towards the inevitability of all of it; that fans and pundits alike can call it a bad idea but that FIFA and its confederations will just press ahead anyways in search of a quick buck. Did you get that feeling?

It’s interesting — they talked about kind of wanting to bring this to the forefront by the end of the year. So I think there was an urgency to do this. But I never got the sense that it was a fait accompli. It felt like there was a lot of wiggle room both in terms of whether it would happen at all or not and then also in terms of the details of all of this. There’s a whole lot more to this; the calendar, having youth World Cups every single summer, the development aspect of it. So FIFA wants to get their messaging out on this pretty soon.

But FIFA, obviously, also comes with a history, and with plenty of baggage. And that will make people rightfully skeptical about their motives. That’s something they have to overcome in anything that they do and certainly when they’re introducing something like this that is just a massive type of change. This is the burden that they have.

 

I mean, are you convinced that FIFA is at least somewhat reformed since the regime change several years back?

I mean… it’s better. Look, the initial arguments people level against these changes are that these things are “just about money.” I don’t look at that as a pejorative, to be honest with you. None of this functions without money. And most of the federations in FIFA, out of the 211, they need that money. That is how they function. More of that money is good. Now, the “trickle down” part of all of this, where all of this money is going and how it’s being used, I think that continues to be problematic. I have limited understanding and contact with that side of it but FIFA also seems to try and account for it, to assess for where that money is going, whether it’s within FIFA as an organization or any of its members, when it goes out to them.

 

It’s interesting sometimes to listen to soccer fans in the United States in regards to all of this. I think in some ways some folks might say they have unrealistic expectations — they view soccer, particularly international soccer, as this sort of idyllic, untouchable thing where money shouldn’t really be a priority. There’s a lot of talk about the “purity of the game.” What do you make of all of that?

I think there is a charitable aspect that we associate with the game that is kind of unique. It probably comes just from the international and global aspects of soccer and a bit of romance — I’m not saying other sports don’t have romance attached to them — but this is our world and our world’s game. And I think with that comes kind of an expectation of it to be much more altruistic and much more charitable, I guess, for lack of a better world. But even if you’re charitable, it doesn’t mean you don’t have a fiduciary responsibility to do things to make things sustainable and oftentimes to improve the standing of the game. And oftentimes to improve those things you need to make money. And more money. 

 

The most common argument against playing the World Cup every two years is that the tournament will sort of “lose its shine,” that the reason the World Cup is so great is because of the scarcity of it — what’s your take on all of that?

If that’s the case, then why is Champions League, or the NBA playoffs, why aren’t those every four years? Why don’t you stretch those out and make them all that much more valuable? I do think that the loss of luster, the loss of prestige, that’s an initial and fair and justified reaction. It was interesting during these presentations; FIFA, they spent a lot of time talking about specific criticisms, anticipating the pushback that would come from all of this. The prestige thing was addressed. A lot of it was focused on the different times we live in these days. The instant gratification of all of it, the information age, the short attention span that sort of exists now as opposed to 90 years ago when this was first established, when you were taking boats to a World Cup. 

I`m less concerned with that element. People will go and see it whether it’s every two years or four years. It won’t lose its luster. I am concerned, I guess, with how it will affect other competitions out there — I do think it’s important to be concerned about that. And then there’s the romantic notion, my own personal notion, about how the World Cup impacted me and not wanting to deny anybody that opportunity and that gift that can change their life. Even if it isn’t the same level that I got, why wouldn’t half of that level be something that’s good? I think more players will get opportunities, more teams will get opportunities and more teams will get more bites at the apple.

 

It is interesting that when you hear soccer fans argue about this they do talk about these sort of weird, intangible ideals — that it will lose “shine” or that it will be cheapened, when it’s tough sometimes to even know that that means.

This is personal to us. This is how we’ve grown up, this is how we’ve always seen this tournament. People frame their entire thought processes (around this four-year cycle.) The first year is the recovery from disappointment; the next year is getting back into qualifying and the promise of the future. Any disruption in that tradition or that cycle is going to be jarring, and there’s going to be pushback. I can be incredibly progressive in the way I think about the sport, and then there are other times when I can be protective of the past and tradition and wary of change that’s going to alter the way that I think about life or the game of soccer. People don’t want to have that type of change. FIFA understands that, Arsene Wenger understands this better than anybody. They understand that there will be a visceral and emotional and personal reaction from people that have never known any other way of doing this.

 

Both of the options that were presented in regards to reshaping the existing international windows — one of them being to split them into two and the other being to do just a single month — strike me as maybe being bad for the development of players in this country. If every game is meaningful, and the stakes in every game are high, when do you play players who you’re taking a risk on? Is this the death of the USMNT January camp? 

You’re absolutely right and you hit on one of the subjects of concern. By doing this, yes you increase competitive games and you decrease — I don’t want to call them meaningless games — but let’s say games that are a little less important. The reality is that if this is all in an effort to develop players, then when it gets down to brass tacks oftentimes coaches will go with the path of least resistance and what they know and they can rely on, which is usually experience. The opportunity to throw players into games, to test them, to get them experience, yeah there’s some concern that they might go away.

The other part of it is that this came predominantly from a worldview where everybody plays in the same season. We know certainly from Major League Soccer and also from NWSL — there’s a whole women’s component of this with Jill Ellis — that’s certainly not the case elsewhere. These types of things could cause major disruptions to the seasons that are being played in these countries.

 

Well which of the two options feels right to you?

Regardless of what happens, the calendar really needs to be looked at and some changes need to be considered. The one window, which I think Arsene Wenger is a proponent of, is putting all of your eggs in one basket. If you’re missing players that could be problematic. From the U.S. perspective, as well, our men’s and women’s national teams, these are juggernauts when it comes to marketing and branding. And if for eight months out of the year you are out of sight, out of mind, I don’t think that’s a good thing for soccer in the United States. If this were to happen, in terms of these two options, I’d rather have two windows rather than one month-long window that happens in October. 

From FIFA’s “Football of Tomorrow” press conference presentation

 

Where do you think U.S. Soccer stands on all of this? What’s your general feeling there?

When it comes to U.S. Soccer, I don’t know what (federation president) Cindy (Parlow Cone)’s thoughts are on something like this. Ultimately, if this were to mean that from a U.S. perspective we would potentially have more players who could take part in men’s and women’s World Cups and that the U.S. would have more opportunities to host the tournament itself, that might be beneficial to us. Once again, the season that we play really has to be looked at in terms of the problems that arise from changing this calendar.

Look, there is a reason why when this was put out there, there was overwhelming support from many countries. A lot of the countries in CONCACAF, for example, are small nations that have never had a chance to be a part of the show. For them, it’s about more funding for their programs and more opportunities for their players. 

 

You visited a stadium in Doha; obviously there’s been so much talk about the upcoming men’s World Cup stadiums, the playing surfaces, the temperature, all of it…The “air conditioning” in particular seems just borderline bizarre… How was that?

In my case, you’re putting a redhead in the desert. The moment I’d step outside I’d start sweating. We took the trip to the stadium – just from the door of the bus to the entrance of the stadium, I was drenched. That’s how hot it is there. Yet as soon as I crossed the threshold into the stadium and walked up the steps onto the field, it was as if I was in a different world. Honestly. Certainly I was in a different climate. It bore little to no resemblance to what I’d just been in. The organizers, also, told us that they’d actually turned the temperature up for us. It had been too cold previously. So from a comfort level in the stadiums, it won’t affect the play on the field and the fans will be comfortable as well.

Now, there might have been a hole in the ozone layer directly above this place. I have no idea how they’re able to do this. It seemed impossible that they’d do this when they announced they were going to “air condition” these stadiums, but it works. I’ve been there, I’ve seen it, felt it and it works. 

 

Did you come away with any concerns?

My big concern with Qatar is whether the infrastructure is going to hold. One of the big messages and parts of the marketing, the advertising is the proximity of these stadiums, the ability to get to multiple stadiums in one day, they’ve built a whole subway. When I was there they were continuing to make the roads bigger. But it just hasn’t been tested; we’re about to have a World Cup in an area the size of Connecticut or Rhode Island or whatever it ends up being where it’s 20 minutes between stadiums or whatever. If that’s what you’re promising, the ability to get to multiple places, and all of that, you have to make sure this infrastructure is able to get people to all of these games. This is an advertisement to the world.

 

There’s also the elephant in the room here, the well-documented history of human rights violations that the Qatari government committed to get some of these stadiums built. Was there a pang of guilt there for you, seeing this place and knowing that it was at least partially constructed in a truly problematic way?

I’m a human being. I’ve read all of the reports and stories surrounding all of that, obviously. The people I’ve talked to over there, they are well-prepared for what is coming. From a reporting perspective, there will be plenty of reports on what has happened and how we got to this point. That’s not necessarily my job, to do that. But I incorporate all of that into the moments that I experience and the things that I see. It is simply part of the story. And they certainly understand that too. (The Qataris) have their side of the story, and we’ve talked to them about it as well, the way that they see it. But it’s not something that in my capacity working for Fox that I will probably be dealing with. But don’t worry. You’re going to get your fix, if you will, of the realities on the ground, the history, the problematic situations that have occurred. There will be plenty of that.