The Downfall of English Football

Doesn't work like that. If UEFA is serious it will be investigated (big IF). 25mil does not appear overnight without explanation and AFAIK under the rules "gifts" and "loans" cannot be classed as profit.

EDIT: We'll know if UEFA is serious if they start hiring forensic accountants or hire independent companies like KPMG to do regular audits
 
Last edited:
if teams feel the need to put themselves into massive debt just to get a player or two, let them. Sooner or later it will catch up to them. The smarter teams will spend within their limits and it will benefit them in the long run.

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

also, at the end of the day I don't think it's killing the game, it's just putting more pressure on the players. Sure they may cost $30 million USD, but if they've got to play well and win matches. If they don't they might get put into the bargain bin for some other club to come and pick them up and use them for their talent. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 
The PL is the most watched league in the world and thats because its the most entertaining. People go to great lenghs in countrys to watch games in the PL.

It's the most watched in the world because it's the most well-marketed and became very business oriented early on. The other leagues never got on the ball (ptp) in selling their product overseas, whereas the EPL did it very well. The language helped too. So yeah, Asians and Americans watch it a lot, but that doesn't mean it's the most entertaining. I try to avoid it but unfortunately it's the only football that's on here, and I'm always disappointed. Arsenal is the only team in the league I find enjoyable to watch.

In your OPINION it's most entertaining in the world.

In terms of attendance, the Bundesliga has by far the highest in the world.

In terms of competitiveness/unpredicatability, of the big leagues, the Bundesliga is by far the best. There is more parity in that league than any European league, and it's totally unpredictable. Small teams out of nowhere challenge for the title (Hoffenheim, Wolfsburg, this year Dortmund, which isn't that big of a team). There are no 'big teams' that win every year. Bayern Munich is obviously the traditional one, but they struggle a lot, and no other team can constantly finish well. The lower half of the league is great and there are no easy games, unlike the other big leagues.

In terms of the style of play, it's a matter of taste. If you want offensive football and goals, you'd have to look at the Bundesliga. It has the most offensive style of play and the highest amount of goals per game by far (the Eredivisie is in second, with the third being pretty far off). A lot of people like the Premiership for its pace, but a lot of people, mainly in Latin America, think it's really ugly soccer, and I would agree. My favorites are the Spanish and Argentine leagues, and watching what I consider to be attractive football is what's most important, I don't care if the best athletes and teams are in the Prem or not. But it's a matter of taste.

If you've followed this forum with any detail, you know that we've spoken at length the perils the english league faces, and the fact the the financial fair play rules are badly needed. But the OP takes two transfers and then decides its the downfall of the english league. That is a flawed argument. So please, dont us tell we blindly support our league, we know all too well what's right and and more importantly, whats wrong with it

I haven't followed it with any detail, I just started looking at the football forum a week or two ago so I don't know the opinions of the FM base users. But I feel like they're more educated than a lot of fans out there.

Anyway, why then did the OP get the response that it did? He mentions the fact that there is by far more debt in the Prem than anywhere else, and everyone said it was a bad thread and that they weren't interested. I've also noticed that everyone thinks Wenger is overly frugal and he is criticized constantly for not buying more players. He's trying to balance the books, but rather than respecting him most people just can't stand him and think he's pretentious about his financial decisions. I think that's a rather unhealthy climate. The OP obviously didn't say English football was over because of the Carroll event as you suggested it did, that's a very poor reading of it. It just mentioned the fact that this transfer window was simply an indication of how messed up football is right now. I agree with him and I'm shocked that few do.

The FFP rules don't do enough, and I'm sure there will be loopholes. They only affect the teams that want to play in European competitions, if I understand correctly, and many of the lower teams have a lot of problems as well. The Premiership has financialized like crazy and has been way too lose in the spending it allows. The Bundesliga is much more financially sustainable because of the strict limits it has on debt. In the Bundesliga, each team gets 9 million pounds per season as TV money. This helps ensure equal competition. I don't know how the Prem's system works, but I doubt that the TV money is distributed evenly (obviously though La Liga is much worse in that sense, I think Serie A is pretty good about this but I'm not sure). This enabled the Premiership to overtake the Bundesliga in the 00's with foreign money and big foreign signings (the top tea ms, at least), but the Bundesliga looks much, much better off in the long-run.

The Premiership, to me, is a perfect microcosm of some of the causes behind the financial crisis (not a coincidence, since Britain's economy heavily depends on finance). Far too much debt and spending without regards to the future or the sustainability of the institutions. Too much attention to short-term gain without considering the consequences. Not enough regulation to slow the capital sloshing through the system at high speeds that couldn't last forever. Inflated prices not based on real economic activity but on the notion that the market and prices would continue to rise. This includes spending a British player transfer record on a guy who has only had half a season in the Prem, and a Premiership record purchase for a player who is injury-prone, not young, and whose game completely depends on pace, which he may have lost already. So yeah, I think it's an indicator of how things are going now. I don't know what the future holds for the Prem, but I don't think it's good. I'd much rather be in Germany's shoes right now.
 
actually the OP did state using the two transfers, hence why he admits where the misunderstanding is (and thus his re editing of the opening post). We've already mentioned the bundesliga, its 50+1 is how it should be done. TV money heer is still uneven , but much much more balanced than la liga. The big transfers window (5 transfers for nearly 200 million) are also massively out of context wit the rest of the league, most sides spend relatively little.

All of this is nothing new, whether it changes under the FFP remains to be seen
 
Not sure about most English clubs as Man City and Chelsea could probably still spend loads of money as they 'make money' from their sugardaddy's. However the amount of debt Real Madrid had and was still able to buy Ronaldo, Kaka, etc. is just ridiculous.
 
of course this is the best league in the world, with most teams playing different football, UNLIKE SPAIN

---------- Post added at 03:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 AM ----------

it's slowly happening look at your'e national team not as good as they used to be

might not be the best team, but we never stop supporting them that is what loyal is sherk (rooney) to the stupid people on here
 
The NT is definitely a part of it...it is, after all, on the downfall of English football, not the Premiership. The national team has suffered because of the amount of foreigners in the Prem. I think the style of play though isn't good for the development of young players. Premiership clubs tend to buy already established players from other leagues, and the problems of youth development have been noted by a lot of people. There are a few reasons that people usually discuss, the weather (kids play less footie than kids from warmer countries), lack of grassroots development, poor organization, I don't know.

In other leagues, the pace is much slower and the players get more time on the ball. They develop better technically. Since it's slower, they have more time to think about the correct movement and about the tactics. The Prem is the fastest league in the world with the best athletes, who are big and physical. You can create this best league with this style and dominate the smaller, more technical teams (ie Spanish teams) in the Champions League, and hit anyone on the counter who tries to attack. They won't be able to keep up with the fast Premiership players.

But I'm not so sure that this is the best style of play for developing younger players. Look at Spain: their national team is amazing, and it's based on players brought up in Spain. Argentina and Brazil continue to produce world class talent, although their national teams struggle because the players play in several different leagues with different style, so they don't gel well. The Dutch do well because they're great with youth development. The Germans do well because they've focused a lot on grassroots development in recent years. Their league is a little worse than the Prem, which helps. It's not full of well-established, expensive foreign players who take the spots of domestic young players.

The same problems exist with the English club youth teams. Because of the traditional English style of play, the young guys are told to never dribble the ball or try anything creative. It's all about playing traditional route one, longball soccer. And it makes sense because that's what the Premiership is like, you don't have time to dribble around and you're like to get shoved out of the way by some huge defender. Most goals are scored on set pieces anyway (I heard a statistic that one third of goals were scored on set pieces in the Prem, although this was maybe 5 years ago). There's also the obsession with size and athleticism, because those traits are necessary in the Prem, but they don't necessarily make the best players (look at Spain).

The reason I say this mostly is because the US uses the English style of play. Americans worship the Premiership and English football in general, and have since the beginning of the sport (NCAA coaches, who founded the sport in America, used British textbooks and imitated British tactics, I don't know why, language maybe?). American soccer is simply a very poor imitation of British football: primitive long ball tactics, emphasis on fitness, heart and 'professionalism' as well as size and speed and set pieces. The Americans are doing very poorly in developing youth players and little progress is being made. They suffer from all of the problems of the young English players: no skill, poor touch, and no creativity. The young players continue to be a bunch of athletic big players who just don't have the skill (and in America's case, the positioning skills and tactical intelligence, for other reasons) to be truly quality players. These countries can produce a lot of decent players, but not a player like Xavi, Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, etc. The English or American players that are good are typically either really athletic, really big, or really fit, hardworking types like Rooney.

This is why I think it's the style of play. Because even though the US, Scotland, Ireland, and England have totally different league systems and issues, they all seem to struggle to produce quality talent lately, in the past decade or two. What's the common factor? The British style of play.

At the same time it's really important not to react and totally try to change things. You guys invented the game, you shouldn't have to imitate any other country's style of play. You should be proud of the way you play. You emphasize fitness and heart more than the Latin players, and look at how totally unprofessional many of their top stars are. Sometimes it's a good thing to see a side lacking in quality beat a better team with hard work and determination (although usually not fun to watch if you're a neutral). At the same time though, it wouldn't hurt to take a page from the Germans' book. Their style is close enough to yours and they are doing very well with youth development and their national team. Maybe it's entirely organizational, or maybe it's the Bundesliga's set up, but they're doing something right.

Just my .02
 
Everyone whines about the national team being poor because of foreigners in the prem. Load of **** IMO. If English players were good enough they'd be beating foreigners out for spots on the roster. If anything it shows youngsters who want to break in to 1st team that's where they have to be - they can't just be good they have to be better than anyone else on the squad. I get the MLS shoved down my throat by espn and the standard of play is light years from what it was 2-3 years ago which incidentally was the time when some big names started heading over there to end their careers.

No league is bereft of foreigners. Italy - look at the squads of Inter, Roma, Milan or any squad in the top 1/2 (at least 10 non italians playing regularly), Bundesliga - Dortmund has at least 8, Bayern has at least 8, Leverkusen has at least 8, Schalke has at least 8. Same deal as Italy with any top 1/2 team. Lets look at everyone's favorite Spain - Madrid has 15! foreigners playing regularly, Barca has 9, Sevilla 12 and Villareal has 6. Only Bilbao is the only club in any major league that has a roster 100% free of foreigners.

The English team didn't have a dismal showing at the WC because they lack talent. The lack of a team ethos and effort, infighting led to their downfall. The incumbents have stagnated and are just being picked on name despite **** poor performances for the national team. The teams that were succesful at the WC - Spain had the vast majority of players playing at 2 clubs and were willing to put aside domestic rivalries for glory, Germany which had a team that consisted of players who are growing up together having been part of u19's and u21's. They are young and were still to make a name for themselves prior to the cup. With the world's eyes watching they showed what hunger and desire can do for their value and paypackets. They are teams not a hodge podge colection of talent thrown together.
 
Last edited:
chelsea and city will be in alot of trouble when these new rules come in as neither club posts a positive turnover meaning they wouldnt be allowed to compete in europe and wouldnt have any money to spend on transfers.
united scum will be ok beacuse despite their enourmous debt they still produce the largest revenue in england and are able to still function with their debt.
 
Premiership clubs tend to buy already established players from other leagues, and the problems of youth development have been noted by a lot of people. There are a few reasons that people usually discuss, the weather (kids play less footie than kids from warmer countries), lack of grassroots development, poor organization, I don't know.



The same problems exist with the English club youth teams. Because of the traditional English style of play, the young guys are told to never dribble the ball or try anything creative. It's all about playing traditional route one, longball soccer. And it makes sense because that's what the Premiership is like, you don't have time to dribble around and you're like to get shoved out of the way by some huge defender. Most goals are scored on set pieces anyway (I heard a statistic that one third of goals were scored on set pieces in the Prem, although this was maybe 5 years ago). There's also the obsession with size and athleticism, because those traits are necessary in the Prem, but they don't necessarily make the best players (look at Spain).

These countries can produce a lot of decent players, but not a player like Xavi, Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, etc. The English or American players that are good are typically either really athletic, really big, or really fit, hardworking types like Rooney.

This is why I think it's the style of play. Because even though the US, Scotland, Ireland, and England have totally different league systems and issues, they all seem to struggle to produce quality talent lately, in the past decade or two. What's the common factor? The British style of play.


The jist that I get from this is that coz of England's physical league we have no technical players and creative players..... Well Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Beckham, Scholes,.... All these player are physical AND technical...
 
The jist that I get from this is that coz of England's physical league we have no technical players and creative players..... Well Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Beckham, Scholes,.... All these player are physical AND technical...

Gerrard, definitely yes. Scholes, definitely yes. Rooney, yeah. Lampard? Definitely not. He can run forward and shoot from range but he's not going to dribble by anyone. Beckham? Definitely not. Great crossing and passing and a good touch but no way I'd describe him as a technical player. You didn't mention Lennon or Milner, who are two of the most technically skilled players in the England pool, but I don't get to watch either of them play really, and neither impressed me at the world cup (Milner was particularly bad, Cherundolo had him in his back pocket at the World Cup).

Beckham and Scholes are way old, so it seems you're listing off the most skilled English players in years. The fact that we can only name a handful shows they're not producing enough skilled players. Sure, there are plenty of English players who are big and fast, but realistically there have only been a handful of skilled players produced in the past couple of decades. This is entirely different from Spain, Argentina, or Brazil, where you have entire leagues of skilled players.

Just my opinion but there are a lot of people that would agree with me, I've heard a lot of people lament the lack of skill and creativity from English players. Usually something about youth development is cited as the reason but I think it might be the style of play in general. The Prem is so fast but I don't know if that's a good thing for youth development.
 
Everyone whines about the national team being poor because of foreigners in the prem. Load of **** IMO. If English players were good enough they'd be beating foreigners out for spots on the roster. If anything it shows youngsters who want to break in to 1st team that's where they have to be - they can't just be good they have to be better than anyone else on the squad.

Obviously a young player isn't going to get a game ahead of your new 15million central midfielder from Spain. The problem is young player's don't get a lot of first team action until their in their twenty's and by then their not good enough and drop to the championship.

One thing I have noticed in Scotland team's are playing a lot more younger player's -we played a 18/19 midfielder year old against Man U at home in the CL. Another 18/19 year old defender against Bursaspor in the CL. And I'm sure another young midfielder we play will feature in the EL - These players are given the chance to prove their worth in first team games. This rarely happen's In England
 
One example I would like to give is that of Malaysia, obscure country in the world of football until the start of last year where they won the ASEAN Trophy and qualified for the Asian Cup by playing a squad filled with U-23 Players bar 3-4 players, after they won the ASEAN Trophy, the coach said the secret to the side's success was keeping faith in Youth and this brings back memories of Man United in 1999 with their golden generation of youngsters

I am pretty sure to a certain extent, England have adopted this method but if the national team is to progress we need to make a rule where they should be atleast 4 English Players in a playing 11, otherwise youngsters will never get a chance
 
One example I would like to give is that of Malaysia, obscure country in the world of football until the start of last year where they won the ASEAN Trophy and qualified for the Asian Cup by playing a squad filled with U-23 Players bar 3-4 players, after they won the ASEAN Trophy, the coach said the secret to the side's success was keeping faith in Youth and this brings back memories of Man United in 1999 with their golden generation of youngsters

I am pretty sure to a certain extent, England have adopted this method but if the national team is to progress we need to make a rule where they should be atleast 4 English Players in a playing 11, otherwise youngsters will never get a chance


If a player is not good enough, he should not be playing, no matter what nationality. Imo teams should be allowed to pick their best team. If a player is good enough, he will play, if he is not, he should not. Simple as that, just because someone is English doesnt give them the right to start ahead of a better player just because the rules force the team to play him. I would much rather see wonderful football played by brilliant players rather than teams having to play a less talented player because they have to. Don't get me wrong, i like to see young players get the chance however if they cant cut it, then they shouldnt be playing until they improve and surely by training with players of the highest quality week in week out, they will improve and the better players will get their chance.
 
If a player is not good enough, he should not be playing, no matter what nationality. Imo teams should be allowed to pick their best team. If a player is good enough, he will play, if he is not, he should not. Simple as that, just because someone is English doesnt give them the right to start ahead of a better player just because the rules force the team to play him. I would much rather see wonderful football played by brilliant players rather than teams having to play a less talented player because they have to. Don't get me wrong, i like to see young players get the chance however if they cant cut it, then they shouldnt be playing until they improve and surely by training with players of the highest quality week in week out, they will improve and the better players will get their chance.

Doesn't it bother you though that there are so many foreigners in the league? You don't want to see your countrymen play? After all, it is the English Premier League. Only a few years ago it was mostly Englishmen. If you want to watch foreigners play turn on Serie A, La Liga, the Bundesliga, etc. I'm not English but it would **** me off if there were that many foreigners in my league.
 
Doesn't it bother you though that there are so many foreigners in the league? You don't want to see your countrymen play? After all, it is the English Premier League. Only a few years ago it was mostly Englishmen. If you want to watch foreigners play turn on Serie A, La Liga, the Bundesliga, etc. I'm not English but it would **** me off if there were that many foreigners in my league.
what's this got to do with the initial point of the OP on transfers?
 
what's this got to do with the initial point of the OP on transfers?

Nothing, I was just responding to what he said. But since the thread title is on the downfall of English football, I figure that can include the national team, right? That seems to be the topic at hand. I'm not sure whether or not the presence of so many foreigners hurts the English NT but I have a feeling it does somewhat...if there was a foreigner rule in the starting XI clubs might focus more on developing English talent rather than buying foreigners abroad. It's all connected, if you throw a ton of money into the league it will make them more likely to buy foreign players rather than develop their own. Which ultimately hurts the NT and perhaps the league as well in the long run. Plus, you have to think of the fans, I'm sure there's a lot of people out there that would rather see English players on the pitch even if it meant a little less quality.
 
what's this got to do with the initial point of the OP on transfers?

It does have to with it, It shows that team's are signing the best player's instead of trying to produce their own player's.This thread isn't about transfer's they were an example. The point is too show how your league will start going downhill.

Club's start having to pay off debt ---> Player's need to leave ---> No money made from sales as it goes to the bank --->bringing up youngster's for constant first team action who were lucky previously to make the bench---> League becomes poorer quality as a result--->Less people investing ridiculous money--->Less player's want to join.

However if young player's are given some games they become more experience more English player's better the league becomes
 
Top