From: dmg@st-andrews.ac.uk (David Gill)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: Re: European Superleague
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:48:33 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <85428@ut-emx.uucp> etzhadat@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Hydro Man) writes:
>Here is my idea for a European-wide league.
>Alright, you can call this a typical US marketing scheme, but I think this
>is a workable plan
>
>1. It would be one league of 32 teams.
>
>	For the first year
>1a. This year's Champions' Cup would decide the 32 nations to be represented
>1b. The teams selected would be this year's league champions.
>1c. The teams to go to next year's Champions' Cup will be the 2nd place
>	teams
>
>2. The teams would only play games against each other - no National
>	League or cup games.


I'm personally against any Euro league that would cause teams to miss
their national leagues. I also think the clubs would be against it as
national leagues are where they make the most money.


>3. The 32 teams would be split into two divisions of 16 teams each.
>4. The divisions would be split along geographic lines (East-West).
>5. Each team would play every other team in its division twice (home &
>	away) and each team in the opposite division once (divided evenly
>	between home and away with the 8 home games randomly drawn)
>	Thus each team would play 15h + 15a + 8h + 8a = 46 games.


I'm not sure about this bit - it seems a bit strange. Maybe I'm just not
used to it.


>6. The top teams from each division would play at the end of the year
>	for the championship.
>7. The bottom two teams in each division would be relegated.
>8. The two teams that finished last would play in the next Champions' cup
>	and compete in their National Leagues.
>9. The two teams that finished second to last would have a random drawing to
>	see who would go to the UEFA Cup and who the the Cup Winners' Cup.
>10. The winners of the Cup Winners' Cup, the UEFA Cup, and the two teams
>	that played for the of the Champions' Cup would be promoted.
>11. The divisions might have to be slightly realligned.
>
>I'll furthere admit I'm borrowing the idea of a play-off from US
>sports in #6, where Europeans are more used to cup competitions with
>random drawings and one league (regular season) league winner.
>
>This league has the following advantages.
>1. (Eventually) Presents a true European champion (whereas the present
>	Champions' Cup is made of last years' winners and so is one
>	year out of date.)



What if the best team in Europe isn't in European competition. They 
would win their national league and then next year win the Champions Cup
and then win the Euro league - so the European Champion would be 2 years
out of date.

I think any set up could have this happening unless all the teams in 
Europe played in the same league which is of course impossible.

>2. Keeps the present National Leagues and cups and Eur. cups intact.
>3. Gives the European cups more meaning than money (promotion to Eur. League)
>	and adds significance to national titles/cups.
>4. It won't interfere with the current national schedules, and . . .
>5. Teams in the European League will not play more games than other teams
>	and hence the rich should not get (too much) richer.
>6. Anyway, there's a method to infuse new blood by promotion/demotion similar
>	to the way the National Leagues are set up, so . .
>6a. No team would be guaranteed a permanent position and . . .
>6b. In theory, any team, by its own merit can reach the European League.
>
>My final argument why the time for this is come is that since Europe
>seems poised to unite economically, why not unite in soccer too?!
>
>
>	TH	Paul Kornreich, Astronomy Dept.; The Univ. of Texas, Austin;
>	FC	RLM 15.308; Austin, TX 78712; (512) 471-3453
>  Spurs' fan		Professional: pkorn@astro.as.utexas.edu
> of recent standing.	News: etzhadat@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

I think a version of your plan with fewer teams in the Euro league and
therefore teams continuing in their national leagues could be similar
to what eventually happens.

David.