English Premier League is at another level

[Arnau]

Said it before I could. When the Serie A, La Liga and Bundesliga I all break away from their respective lower leagues and no longer have to share TV revenue or whatnot, we'll be back to level ground.

But by then, City will be winning the treble every season anyway, so it'll be futile.

nah, champions league cant be bought, the money teams failed trying, Lazio and chelsea the biggest examples.

 

[Dipanjan]

No its not how u look at it.

If you have got a team then you can win and if you have got a group of great players then you probably can not.. Its just how the manager sets the team and how the players take to it.

 

[kp41]

for those of you who say EPL is not strong except top 4, look at matches between fulham which is middle team against united and liverpool, they played better than real against liverpool.

 

[Dipanjan]

so kp40 winning which league is more credible?

 

[Xifio]

England has the most teams who won CL, so i think their championship it's the best

Spain :

Real Madrid - 9 times
Barcelona - 2 times

Italy :

AC Milan - 7 times
Juventus - 2 times
Inter - 2 times

England :

Liverpool - 5 times
Manchester - 3 times
Nottingham Forrest - 2 times
Aston Villa - 1 time

how can England have "the most" when all three nations have 11 wins each?

Well first of all, no, not every country allows teams to be owned by a single benefactor.

not every country allows teams to be owned by a single benefactor? what are you talking about? if you float a company publicly, then you are deemed as "owner" when you have the majority stake ... if there is no majority shareholder, then you may have a democratic process to decide the running of affairs at the club between all the shareholders ... if you keep the club privately owned, then it is obvious who the owner is ... which league do you know that does not have this going on?

Secondly, I'm talking about revenue. Sure a mogul could take over a team and pump money in every year, but that doesn't really happen long term. Even Chelsea is dedicated to making a profit now and their the poster-boy for big spending without regard for the balance sheet.

every club is dedicated to making a profit -- football is a business ... when Chelsea were spending big, they were putting in a long-term investment which would be converted into profits in the future (they did not go on some mad shopping spree) ... and they are not the "poster-boy team" for big spenders; since I've been watching football from the early/mid 90s, Real Madrid always spent huge, Lazio did it at the end of the 90s when they were breaking the World Transfer Record, Inter have also spent big and broken the World Transfer record twice in late 90s, etc. ...

The TV deal and the merchandising in the EPL is so far beyond anything in any other league, it's impossible for those teams to compete. And the gap is just going to keep getting bigger as far as I can see.

it is true there is no competing with the Prem's packaging, but packaging was one of the reasons why they created the Premier League in the first place (learn your history) ... and the Prem was the best covered league even in the 90s when it was far from the best league, and that was due to the fact that it was the best-available league in English -- and most of the world is partially or completely anglophone ...

plus, the Prem has improved the look of their pitches and sound of their stadia (and the colour filters used in broadcasting too, I think), while most of Italy is woefully behind, and Spain's lesser clubs are not impressive either ...

but the main point here is the language barrier ... for the Prem, commentary of matches and presentation of things like Highlights Programs (Review) and Magazine Programs ("Premier League World") are all standardized in English, and the commentators and presenters are guys who sound great, are very enthusiastic about the league and plug it at every opportunity, and also have and provide solid local knowledge ...

to this day, Serie A has dreadful English commentators and presenters, and La Liga is pretty damn awful too ... if you spoke Italian and had access to Sky Sport, you'd enjoy it immensely -- they have excellent panel discussions, great review and magazine programs, and lots of comedic caricatures and player impersonators ... same goes for programming in Spain (and note, this not the same as the coverage done by/for the Mexicans and other Spanish-speaking North Americans) ...

so, how much access do you have to such programming? well, the distinct lack of access for most people of anything other than the Prem is down to the fact that, during the big boom of satellite television and packaged football entertainment during the 90s, there were (and still are) more English speakers in the world, so the Prem was able to garner brand loyalty not only from viewers but from broadcasters too ... I mean you may be able to catch a game or two from other leagues, but all the pre-match and post-match talk shows, and big build-up is centred by English-language networks on the Prem ...

that's also why the England national team has an insane number of supporters in places like Nigeria and South Africa (in fact, across anglophone Africa) -- not because of football quality, but because they have been done-in by celebrity stardom and think that England's national team is some sort of All-Star unit, because they believe the partisan commentators they hear week in, week out, who claim that the English players are the stars of their team, and by extension the stars of the "world's best league" -- and "world's best league" is a phrase that has been mentioned at the end of every highlights show, magazine program, and match broadcast, since back in the day ...

for now, the gap will remain as the English teams succeed in Europe too ... but once the football of Spain and Italy picks back up in the Champions League, then the fickle majority -- where the real big revenue is actually made -- may realize that there is more to the game than just moving the ball very quickly from one end of the pitch to other, and that aesthetic play has many forms ...

 

[Elber2k3]

not every country allows teams to be owned by a single benefactor? what are you talking about? if you float a company publicly, then you are deemed as "owner" when you have the majority stake ... if there is no majority shareholder, then you may have a democratic process to decide the running of affairs at the club between all the shareholders ... if you keep the club privately owned, then it is obvious who the owner is ... which league do you know that does not have this going on?

Bundesliga, atleast 51% of the team has to be owned by the club itself, the only exception from this are so called "Werksmannschaften" like Bayer Leverkusen or VfL Wolfsburg who were originally founded as clubs where company workers played.

 

[Elber2k3]

Officially there are no single benefactors in German clubs. A club is always made up of lots people. Lots of clubs have their pros work for newly founded GmbHs (Ltds), but the club itself isn't owned by nobody, if you can say that there is an owner than all the members are. It's part of the German law, it's hard to explain.

 

[newbie original]

...the main point here is the language barrier ... for the Prem, commentary of matches ..sound great, are very enthusiastic about the league and plug it at every opportunity, and also have and provide solid local knowledge ...

to this day, Serie A has dreadful English commentators and presenters, and La Liga is pretty damn awful too ...... ......

That, right there, is the key for me. For me personally, Inter-Juve or Barca-Sevilla should be able to capture my interest to the same extent as Arsenal-ManU.....but they don't. I fall asleep during the occasional Serie A game that I decide to watch! The play-by-play is just unbearable.....

 

[MikeyM]

I think to be honest, it took the English teams a long time to catch up with the continental teams following the Heysel ban on English clubs competing in Europe.

Also the "European Cup" is vastly different to the one that was contested then. Firstly the top leagues get up to four entries each - meaning that it's not really the "Champions Cup / League" anymore and the group stage format allows teams to stay apart in the early rounds. Perhaps if the drawing system for the groups was randomised then the clubs would be more even. In addition to that, you also have to look at the relative strengths of the "big four" in each country. England is pretty much always United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea - these teams are evenly matched and are seen as a set "top four"(City are a long way off yet) compare that to Italy (Milan and Inter plus two others) Spain (Real and Barca plus two others), Germany (Bayern) plus three others.

The point I'm trying to make is that other European leagues don't tend to have a "big four" who are almost certain to be in the UCL each season. The Premiership does. Other European leagues see "surprise" teams emerge, like Villareal, for example.

United, Arsenal and Chelsea were kept apart. But imagine if that had been lifted in the group stage - conceivably two, maybe three could have met earlier.

This is a failing of the draw system. IMO it should be totally random, like the FA Cup - so luck of the draw, and not TV revenue dictates the drawing.

The FA Cup gives more scope for equal advancement - hence the giantkillings it is famed and reviered for. The Champions League is about two stages from being fully mapped out to keep the big guns from the same country apart in order to maximise latter stage faceoffs.

That is why English Clubs dominate. Don't kid yourself that Liverpool are vastly superior to Real Madrid, Madrid played badly. Same goes with Arsenal over a poor Villareal. But the seeding kept them apart and the group stage ensures that the smaller "less attractive" teams are effectively held down out of the way of the glamour ties UEFA so desperately wants.

 

[Mus]

how can England have "the most" when all three nations have 11 wins each?

he means the number of teams which have won, in his case england have won with 4 teams, and spain and italy have only won with 2 and 3

 

[newbie original]

Using the CL to determine which league is the best proves one thing:

Spain:
98 Real Madrid
00 Valencia & Real Madrid
00 Valencia
02 Real Madrid

Italy:
03 AC Milan and Juventus
05 AC Milan
07 AC Milan

Now England

League "domination" of the CL is cyclical.

 

[Siawash]

Liverpool won in 2005.

 

[Xifio]

he means the number of teams which have won, in his case england have won with 4 teams, and spain and italy have only won with 2 and 3

by that logic, the Dutch and German Leagues would be better than Spain and on par with Italy, because Ajax, F'noord, and P$V have all won the big prize for Holland, while Bayern, HSV, and Dortmund have won it for Germany ...

League "domination" of the CL is cyclical.

always has been, and always will be ... "it is the nature of things" ...

 

[newbie original]

Liverpool won in 2005.

I'm including losing finalists.

 

[rony31]

I'm including losing finalists.

That and that final was rigged anyway.

 

[Zakov]

Also the fact that sometimes the audio isn't captured well enough by broadcasters. I remember watching a Roma game(in Serie A) and I thought the atmosphere was dreadful, but in the CL it was a different story. Add piss poor commentators and you'll lose interest fast.

I think each league has its own attractions, but the EPL is probably the most accessible(in terms of broadcasting and language) league in the world and is covered with more enthusiasm compared to other leagues.

 

[Arnau]

maybe, i dont know never was in england but in spain football its like a religion. football/beer/womans --> spain. and the weather and foot here its much better. we are also funniest than english peapol :/

 

[Dytza]

or we can say that the champions league shows that the league IS indeed strong

three or four teams don't make a league strong.

 

[pede54]

maybe, i dont know never was in england but in spain football its like a religion. football/beer/womans --> spain. and the weather and foot here its much better. we are also funniest than english peapol :/

Well I agree with you there Arnau. Everything you say has me pissing myself laughing every time, that's for sure.

Don't tar all English people with the same brush, and I will endevour to do the same as regards the Spanish.

And Xifio, that's a massive chip on your shoulder mate. Your anti-English sentiments come across louder than the points you try to make. Don't blame the English for everything that is sh!t in your life. Look to yourself mate.

 

[Xifio]

And Xifio, that's a massive chip on your shoulder mate. Your anti-English sentiments come across louder than the points you try to make. Don't blame the English for everything that is sh!t in your life. Look to yourself mate.

haha, my life is fine Pede, don't you worry ... and it is a shame my points aren't getting across to you ...

as for my "anti-English sentiments":

well, I think I'm entitled to say that a brand of brutally physical, constantly counterattacking football does not appeal to me ... if the style of play improves aesthetically -- from my standpoint -- I would see no reason not to enjoy more teams playing the beautiful game ...

but it is the hype of England that has made it rather irritating, like a fly that won't go away unless it is swatted ... the problem is, there is so much sh!t coming out of the mouths of the commentators, "pundits", fans, and sometimes even some of the players, that there are far too many flies to swat ... so it is better for me to just give my comment and walk away from the malodour ...