#STEVIE B SPORTS TV#

But they'll still be in the business of developing talent, selling it upwards and now they have the added benefit of legitimately competing for trophies.вЂњWe have to put so much out there to be the buffet. What should also help is that wage bills for the non Super League clubs will be drastically reduced.

#STEVIE B SPORTS TV#

What hurts the domestic leagues is that without the super clubs you probably lose 50% of TV revenues, but the creation of the Super League should include clauses about TV revenue sharing with a Nation's host domestic leagues, to somewhat make up for that. You're still developing youth players, you're still buying youth players, you're still purchasing players from other clubs both domestically and foreign. It's 15 - 20 clubs that exclusively play each other and no one else + Internationals. Walk me through this though because I'm not understanding how we got hereДЄ Super League exists.

Plus, even if a team in the super league does get youth talent, where will they go to develop until they're good enough to be inserted into a super league XI? Most teams would slide into a second or third league caliber club, if they don't shut down altogether, and how is that level of competition supposed to get somebody ready to take on the best teams on the planet? If they fold, so do the local academies, since youth coaches won't have organizations to stick to and weekly paychecks coming in, so they'll go do something else. IMO, the way I look at it, many non-super league teams would fold, since they've built out facilities and contracts as though they'll have that EPL money (and more) coming in. Just like those local academies in South America are dependent on European purchases of their youth talent, smaller clubs need bigger clubs to purchase their players, since that's the quickest way to infuse cash without those mega money TV deals like the EPL or UCL has. Sure, but their purchases of those youngins funds the local academies that found those talents. It's not like they rely on academy talent even now - they have basically Foden and a bunch of bought stars. I'm sure they have a bunch of local kids in the U9s+ but I'm not sure that would stop even if City were in a Super League. So that's just 8 out of 20 who are local talents who actually made it to the Manchester City academy side. GK 2 - Signed from Southend United - 230 miles awayДF 5 - raised in Liverpool, signed to City at 11 GK 1 - Signed from Watford - 190 mils from City

Just going through Man City's academy page: They stack their academy sides with bought talent.

I think clubs like City and Madrid and PSG are actively harmful to local player development. This is why these discussion are interesting, because I actually think the opposite. Like you're Tottenham, how in the hell are you expected to keep up with City? You don't have the ownership funding or dedication to do that, and I don't even know that suggesting clubs should spend a literal billion on football players is the morally correct thing to do. It's ridiculous when you take a few steps back. They're lapping the field and rather than getting mad my school with it's state of old people, in a culture that supports multiple pro-sports and multiple college sports, and a good chunk of non-sporting stuff, I'm mostly fed up by thinking that our local economy now has to support $1-$5M per player in NIL just to not get blown out ON TOP of all the money they gotta more traditionally sink into football. The South loves football and resources football in a way the rest of the nation never will. Actually it's more like telling the SEC to go play with itself and letting everyone else compete on a more even playing field.

Stevie b sports