People always like to moan about the Champions League, UEFA’s favourite cash cow, but the reason varies from year to year. This season, we’ve seen some fantastic displays from outsiders at the expense of big clubs, and have a terrific spread of eight quarter-finalists from seven different countries, with Spain’s big two providing the only exception to the rule.
The rich clubs’ dominance of the European Cup is the usual cause for complaint, but now we have to find something new, and the inevitable issue this year is the ‘standard of competition’. Football is a sport ripe for nostalgia, especially considering the huge changes the game have seen over the past couple of decades, and the result is almost every fan looks back on the past with rose-tinted spectacles. It’s difficult to remember competitions from a couple of decades ago in greater depth than the finalists, so people tend to remember the entire competition based upon the standard of the winner. The standard of competition now is no worse than five years ago, or ten years ago. In fact, because of the evolution of the game over the years, it’s almost certainly stronger.
So why would anyone feel the opposite? The truth is that our expectations have been distorted by Barcelona and Real Madrid. The duo may or may not make the final—that depends partly on the draw—but they are by far the strongest teams in this competition. The Premier League’s best two clubs couldn’t get past the group stage, neither could Germany’s champions and league leaders, Borussia Dortmund. France’s top two, Montpellier and PSG, didn’t qualify for the tournament in the first place, while Milan are a decent side but a shadow of the team that was so strong throughout the last decade. If the Champions League was just that—a league—then from this final eight, Barcelona and Real’s dominance wouldn’t be too different from the ludicrous superiority they enjoy in La Liga.
Things have changed in the last few years in Spain. It seems like the two-horse race has been a feature for years, but as recently as 2008 Villarreal finished ten points ahead of Barcelona, and at the start of the century Deportivo La Coruna and Valencia were the teams to beat.
Real and Barca’s earning capacity has always been greater, though, and it’s only in the last few years that they’ve really taken advantage of this to its maximum potential. Both clubs were run shambolically in recent years; between Louis van Gaal and Frank Riijkaard, Barcelona’s strategy of appointing mangers was a joke, while at Real the novelty circus act known as the Galacticos was not a policy befitting one of the greatest clubs in Europe.
But the two are always directly competing, and both clubs’ woes were only permissible while the other was being equally silly. When one got their house in order, the other had to respond. Now both clubs have highly intelligent coaches and a slick backroom team too, and finally, they’re making the most of their obscene television deals.
The disparity in television revenue for La Liga clubs is nothing new, but it’s worth outlining again. According to the Guardian, the top club in La Liga earns 12.5 times as much as the bottom club. That’s compared to 1.54 in the Premier League, 2 in the Bundesliga and 3.51 in Ligue 1, although Serie A’s figure of 10 also deserves criticism.
Of course, this means a huge gap between the top two and every other club in Spain. While perennial third-placed Valencia earn just €48m, Barca and Real bring in around €135m from television revenue. Everyone knows it’s an issue, both within Spain and abroad. But until now it’s been a problem consigned to that country.
Now, Real and Barca look like dominating the Champions League this season, and perhaps for years to come.
Is it any wonder those two clubs are so much stronger than everyone else when Spain’s poorly-structured television deal earns them more money than other clubs can dream of? Is it any wonder they are so much stronger when they can take Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo and Cesc Fabregas from England’s top clubs, Kaka, Alexis Sanchez and Zlatan Ibrahimovic (briefly) from Italy, and Mesut Ozil, Sami Khedira and Nuri Sahin from Germany? Those moves have weakened significant rivals in the Champions League. This isn’t an issue in Spain any longer, it’s an issue across Europe.
Of course, the Premier League is hardly at the bottom of the food chain, and its dominance of the Champions League in recent years was tedious, but at least it ended. There are no signs that Spain’s current television deal will become more balanced—quite the opposite, in fact.
There have been hints that clubs from other countries will start to protest. “In Spain, their issues, particularly in this economic climate, are exacerbated by the fact they do not have solidarity,” said Arsenal chief executive Ivan Gazidis. “I think it is placing owners of Spanish clubs under tremendous pressure and damaging the game there,” he continued.
But it is damaging the game in Europe, too, and causing Liverpool’s Managing Director Ian Ayre to think out loud; “Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally,” he said last year. “Maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain, there are so many things moving in that particular area,” he continued, neatly wrapping a terrifying prospect with meaningless corporate fluff, perhaps hoping we wouldn’t notice the seriousness of his suggestion. The Premier League’s disastrous season in the Champions League will fuel similar thoughts.
For now, we have two excellent teams to celebrate, but their dominance comes from selfishness as much as style. Such dominance doesn’t even benefit Barcelona and Real in the long run. If they rule the next few years, their triumphs will be mentally asterisked by the knowledge that their competitors are comparatively poor, in more ways than one.
Well said. However, where were these mental asterisks when talking about the decline of Serie A and/or dominance of the Premiership, even with the knowledge of the huge disparities in the earnings between their respective teams? Fine, the disparity wasn’t due to selfishness and all that evil. But where was this perspective?
It’s all very simple. FFP’s threat has meant that the EPL for once, bought badly in general.
I wasn’t writing then :) The Prem dominance of the CL was even more boring!
This is what happens when you don’t have a league-minded owner like Tim Mara to make the choice to sacrifice personal wealth in exchange for a healthy league. Barca and Real are all about their own self-interests, which is fine – but you need to have healthy teams to play against. The model of a big two and everyone else taking a hike isn’t sustainable.
*cough* Scotland *cough*
It’s called the European Super League, and it’s the only way to solve these issues. Picking on Spain’s big two is pretty clever, especially when ignoring the fact that only 3 teams (and one fluke in 95) have won the Premier League since it’s inception, and the last 10 Serie A’s have been won by only 3 teams. It’s alright to say Spain’s success is bad for Europe, but in that case isn’t Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea’s dominance bad for Fulham, Villa, Everton, Liverpool, QPR, Wigan, Bolton……
You bring up an old argument. One that will only be solved in one way. Pan-Euro’ism is needed in club football in the worst way.
The fact that Spain has the most lopsided television revenue distribution by a mile is an unavoidable fact. You have teams in Spain that can’t pay their players. Levante operates on an annual budget of 10 million euros to pay for everything the club does, That’s MLS money!
I understand that, but seriously, compare viewing figures for El Giganticos and the rest of the league. How is it fair that the two teams who draw virtually the entire audience the league gets in a season gets the same cut as the little guys drawing a few thousand?
If i’m not mistaken, the EPL distributes TV rights pretty evenly. That hasn’t helped teams compete with the guys at the top at all. I understand that outside investment has had a lot to do with that, but broadcast revenue equality isn’t the sole answer here.
“Picking on Spain’s big two is pretty clever, especially when ignoring the fact that only 3 teams (and one fluke in 95) have won the Premier League since it’s inception, and the last 10 Serie A’s have been won by only 3 teams.”
That’s not really the point though, at all – in fact the article makes a point about how things have changed massively in the past couple of years in Spain.
I like the “fluke” ceveat. May as well say that for Depor and Valencia’s wins too…
Think players are too greedy, they needs to have more commitment to there club and fans, this will help strength other clubs and money will star to flow better.i
Don’t blame Real Madrid and Barcelona for acting in their own self-interest. Blame the Spanish public who would rather tune in to watch these giants play than watch poorer teams such as Sporting or Racing.
Dan is right; a European Super League is the only way to achieve some kind of parity. Even in the the most revenue friendly sharing league, the Bundesliga, only seven different clubs have won it since 1983. It’s better than the five of La Liga in the same amount of time, but not by much. In the Series A and in England it’s seven teams a piece. In other words, even some sort of perverse form of winning parity doesn’t exist in any of the major European leagues. Spain certainly is the worst, but it’s really not that far behind any of the others.
“If they rule the next few years, their triumphs will be mentally asterisked by the knowledge that their competitors are comparatively poor, in more ways than one.” How ironic that you should write this statement on the day that the 7th best side in La Liga, dominated and beat the team at the top of the table in the Premier League for the second time within a week.
I wanted to bring up the Bilbao thing but it just seemed like it was too easy. At this point, it’s more showing just how great two teams became rather than how poor the rest of their league is. Valencia, Atletico, Bilbao…these guys can compete, regardless of their records vs. the big 2. Also, if Malaga does hold on for a Champions League spot, expect the Euros to fly around this summer.
“If they rule the next few years, their triumphs will be mentally asterisked by the knowledge that their competitors are comparatively poor, in more ways than one.” How ironic that you should write this statement on the day that the 7th best side in La Liga, dominated and beat the team at the top of the table in the Premier League for the second time within a week.”
Not at all – was referring to their minimal competition in the CL, rather than in La Liga.
Barca and Madrid have the world’s best players in every position because they are the 2 biggest clubs in world football.
Example Starting 11: Casillas, Dani Alves, Pique, Sergio Ramos, Coentrao, Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, C Ronaldo, Messi, Ozul. Is there a real better 11 in the world?
Even if they can’t pay higher wages than Man City, or PSG or even Anzhi, the world’s best players will choose these clubs first because of their history and status.
I think FFP will limit the ludacris transfer fees, but the players will negotiate with the interested clubs, and work deals out to have them play for Barca and Madrid.
I do think that a Euro Super League is not far away and Champions League will be scrapped. The heavyweights will all compete week in, week out against one another, making every game more exciting to watch than Barca v B Leverkusen. But will a Super League have successful revenue? If you have big games every week, people have nothing to look forward to. Which is why domestic derby’s and big Champions League ties are highly anticipated. Or do we as the fan, have to accept that football is this way and it’ll never change…
You won’t find too many people arguing that the TV money shouldn’t be equally distributed. In fact on Revista De La Liga, Guillem Balague & Graham Hunter mentioned that it was something Barcelona (to an extent) were willing to do (but that Real Madrid weren’t.) I follow La Liga extensively and having seen the damage it’s done to the other clubs, I’d love to see it happen.
I do, however,think that you have to consider that Barcelona striking on an extraordinary group of cantenaros and a manager who’s been able to get the best out of them is an important factor in all of this.
Just looking at the players you listed. It’s not like Barcelona were the only club interested in signing Alexis Sanchez & Fabregas. Their transfer fee & wages were such that other top clubs in Europe could have signed those two but they wanted to sign only with Barça. Ibrahimovich, yes. That’s one that few others could afford. Mascherano is another player to have moved from a strong league to Spain but he took a wage cut to do so.
The remaining six of the players on the list are all Real Madrid’s (or rather Perez’s) signings in response to 2008/09. Barcelona have responded in the past to trophy droughts by spending big (in a similar scale to what Juve has been doing for example) but nothing like the same extent that Real have done.
Additionally, what about the likes of Chelsea and Man City who don’t have the advantage of an unfair television deal but benefit from being the owned by billionaire? Is there an asterix over Chelsea’s league title or would there be one over the CL title if they’d won it, since they spent significantly more than any one else in Europe.
“Not at all – was referring to their minimal competition in the CL, rather than in La Liga.” Just to be clear, who are you referring to when you say “their”? If you’re referring to Barcelona and Real Madrid, then I would refer you to an Alex Ferguson quote:
“Sometimes these things go in cycles and at the moment Barcelona are in the middle of a fantastic cycle of having a tremendous squad of players. But that changes over time and at the moment English football is in a good cycle in terms of the four teams that are represented in Europe every year.”
Great teams do go through cycles and it’s hard to be unbeatable for more than 6, to 7 years in any sport. I believe your argument is that Barcelona and Madrid’s unfair revenues would allow them to compete and be unbeatable for a lot longer. But if that was the case, then why aren’t Chelsea and Manchester City and the dubious money they’ve obtained through the corruption of the United Arab Emirates and Russia, able to consistently win all the time? City have spent 500 million pounds (and yes they are relatively young project) on their squad, and all they have to show for it is an F.A. cup win that a lot of English squads don’t even take all that seriously. Chelsea have still never won the Champion’s League despite Abramovich’s ridiculous spending (174 million pounds on salary alone in 2011. Is it any wonder why Drogba, Terry, Lampard, and Cole want to stick around at Chelsea?) . And I hope nobody is naive enough to bring up Financial Fair Play. Manchester City has already demonstrated that the UEFA Financial Fair Play can be completely circumvented through accounting tricks. So money helps, but as Athletico Bilbao demonstrated yesterday, the sum of a squad, and the chemistry of playing together as a team, is far more important than the talents of high priced individuals. It’s why Barcelona are so good. They combine the team chemistry they obtained from La Masia with the fabulous talent of individuals like Inestia, Xavi, and Messi.
If however, “their” was referring to the other Spanish teams not playing well in the Champion’s League, then I would refer you to Villereal making it to the semi-finals of the Champion’s League 2006, or Deportivo in 2004, who would lose in the semi-finals to the eventually winners, Porto.
I do happen to agree with the premise of your argument. More financial fair play in Spain is required not just for Spain, but in the Champion’s League as well. However, I just feel that more context is needed as Real Madrid and Barcelona are not just the only two clubs throw cash around in the Champion’s League, and Spain is not the only league with an imbalance of club revenue and a disparity in club winning.
Late to the party, yet…
The key point that this post doesnt take in consideration is that even with the current TV shares in Spain, the big two are barely able to equal the financial revenues of the CL clubs in England.
I think, though it is an intelligent argument and it is true that TV shares are not fair in Spain, you are putting the carriage in front of the horses here. In fact, the main argument that big two have against changing TV shares is that they will not be able to compete in CL anymore against way better earners in EPL.
So while it goes without saying that TV shares in Spain should be distributed differently, current shares are harming ONLY the Liga, while keeping the CL more balanced than it will be without it.
Lets not forget that Barcelona’s main strength comes from the grassroots, and if clubs in England were as successful in that department (added to their financial muscles), Big Spanish titans will have no chance, even with current shares.