The PL is heralded as a great evolution in football. But it just created a cartel to make its members rich - and the elite super rich. Promotion and relegation have remained, but it's getting easier for teams to remain the PL if they can establish themselves for two or three years because of their financial clout. It's ruining football.
Football has been twisted by the tv people as well.They are at their beck and call.....and they don't care if travelling fans don't get home until the next day!...and too tired to go to work!
It is the clubs who don't care about the matchday fans as they agreed those time slots to get maximum revenue .
the TV companies have no reason to take into account the match going fans but the clubs do or at least should .
The TV companies should consider the long-term damage that they could do to their own product, too. They wouldn't want the Premier League to end up like Serie A, where the grounds are half empty and you get situations like this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20700529
This is one of the major pluses of our new stadium, in that the whole thing has been designed with the match-day attendance in mind, with the aim being to turn it into a full 'day out' much like you'd have in American sports, rather than an isolated 2-hour long experience. However, the efforts of individual clubs won't amount to squat stacked up against the billions and zillions of the TV companies. Until all PL clubs make a concerted effort to 'boycott' certain kick off times and simply refuse to play, the path we are going hints to a future in which we see matches arranged to suit audiences in the far east and across the pond.
The broadcast contracts are what 3 or 4 years so they don't need to worry about long term damage particularly as they must be getting worried about the level of streaming starting to eat into their revenues - noticeable Sky paid less per game in the most recent deal than the one before .
Think we can all agree that the match day fan comes a long way down the list of priorities in Football in general - Baku FFS
I think it's an entirely appropriate venue for a match between Chelsea and Arsenal. They should all be held there.
Why shouldn't Baku get allocated a final? No one would bat an eyelid if Lisbon or Dublin was and they would be equally inconvenient if the final was between Dynamo Kiev and Lokomotiv Moscow.
The final should be at a convenient stadium for the fans that attend the match. Pick four every season and then choose one of them when the finalists are confirmed.
I sure would if Dublin got the gig . The difference between Baku & London as an international venue is that Baku airport cannot handle the numbers so just on logistical grounds it should have been ruled out.
That would indeed be a better policy but is not the current one. Under the current one there isn't any reason to disqualify any country from being a venue. Although it would effectively disqualify any venue on the edge of Europe.
It's further East than Baghdad. You could have it in Eastern Russia, in theory. Still wouldn't be a good idea.
I don't think that the current system is a very good idea, but given the likely finalists, I'd have to say yes to most of them. The prices are already ludicrous when the games are close to home. Hosting them at a venue with limited access and even more inflated prices isn't good for anyone. Do you think that Khabarovsk or Vladivostock would be a good destination for a final?