Questions for Inter fans

Don't care about the thumbs, so just click all the buttons! :D

Well, I wouldn't say there's any strong opinion about it. Some other fans make fun of us for it, but it comes down to how well they run the club. Since you cannot count on a rich individual (Moratti/Berlusconi) always having the money and passion to run a team that requires a *lot* of investiments and dedication, we have understood that being owned by a large company is the lesser of two evils. Football has
become an international business so it's very hard for local businessmen to run a football team. Juventus is backed by FIAT so they will always be solid. On the other hand, with Moratti and Berlusconi in their 70s, we realized that there was no other option.

yeah it seems Italian clubs have historically had owners. In my country clubs usually don't have owners but chairmen/presidents which are elected by the fans who are paid registered members. It's only a matter of time until one of the bigger clubs here end up having an owner, though. And tbh, some presidents have been leading the same club for several years now, so it's almost likw they're owners.

A lot of European football fans are against rich Arabs and Americans buying clubs, and not against rich owners from their own countries doing so. That's an understandable fear, imo, since you never know if they're interested in making the club successful or use it as their own laundry.
 

Geenja

Esordiente
Very interesting infos, piotor!

How do Italians feel about foreigners buying their football clubs?

...btw, am I using the thumbs up/down feature correctly? I mean to give you guys thumbs up but I fear I might be doing the other way around. :all

As long as they put money in the club and they buy players we would be fine to even be legally owned by a rock
 

piotor

Pallone d'oro
  Moderatore
yeah it seems Italian clubs have historically had owners. In my country clubs usually don't have owners but chairmen/presidents which are elected by the fans who are paid registered members. It's only a matter of time until one of the bigger clubs here end up having an owner, though. And tbh, some presidents have been leading the same club for several years now, so it's almost likw they're owners.

A lot of European football fans are against rich Arabs and Americans buying clubs, and not against rich owners from their own countries doing so. That's an understandable fear, imo, since you never know if they're interested in making the club successful or use it as their own laundry.

It's an (almost) inevitable change in Football, unless you have a larg fan base (Real/Barca) or in a system like in Germany.

The new owners in Europe have understood however that they need not to mingle too much with how the football operations are run. They "bought" the company and let it continue to run normally. They want to see profit and there's only one way to do so: being competitive. That's why foreign owners are not frowned upon: they invest a lot of money in the club and want to expect a return on the field. That's exactly what we also want.

Fortunately UEFA also came up with a system to protect the clubs (the so called financial fair play), which doesn't allow clubs to rely solely on the money of the owners, but rather pushes for the owners to invest in the financial soildity of the club through sponsor and infrastructures, so if that they happened to quit, the club would be solid regardless.
 
It's an (almost) inevitable change in Football, unless you have a larg fan base (Real/Barca) or in a system like in Germany.

The new owners in Europe have understood however that they need not to mingle too much with how the football operations are run. They "bought" the company and let it continue to run normally. They want to see profit and there's only one way to do so: being competitive. That's why foreign owners are not frowned upon: they invest a lot of money in the club and want to expect a return on the field. That's exactly what we also want.

Fortunately UEFA also came up with a system to protect the clubs (the so called financial fair play), which doesn't allow clubs to rely solely on the money of the owners, but rather pushes for the owners to invest in the financial soildity of the club through sponsor and infrastructures, so if that they happened to quit, the club would be solid regardless.

I think it's mostly people from smaller countries that don't like this change. Although what made the gap between big and small countries in terms of club football really was the Bosman ruling and UEFA seeding of teams and allowing 2 to 4 temas of the top countries into the Champions League. Clubs from smaller countries due to their countries of origin having lower nominal GDP and lower populations, thus less fans and less revenue pouring in. Makes you wonder if it's only a matter of time until Turkey and Russia become European football powerhouses...
 

piotor

Pallone d'oro
  Moderatore
I think it's mostly people from smaller countries that don't like this change. Although what made the gap between big and small countries in terms of club football really was the Bosman ruling and UEFA seeding of teams and allowing 2 to 4 temas of the top countries into the Champions League. Clubs from smaller countries due to their countries of origin having lower nominal GDP and lower populations, thus less fans and less revenue pouring in. Makes you wonder if it's only a matter of time until Turkey and Russia become European football powerhouses...

In sports were less money is involved in absolute (Basketball, Waterpolo, Volleyball) minor countries have excellent results.

I'd say however that until the day when UEFA "locks" the CL to only the major leagues, minor countries should still be happy. Making to the group stage alone is *a lot* of money for them (think of Ludogorets, Dinamo Kyev, Celtic, Rostov etc) that allows them to invest.

And there's always the EL.
 

Angelus

Stella
  Moderatore
yeah it seems Italian clubs have historically had owners. In my country clubs usually don't have owners but chairmen/presidents which are elected by the fans who are paid registered members. It's only a matter of time until one of the bigger clubs here end up having an owner, though. And tbh, some presidents have been leading the same club for several years now, so it's almost likw they're owners.

A lot of European football fans are against rich Arabs and Americans buying clubs, and not against rich owners from their own countries doing so. That's an understandable fear, imo, since you never know if they're interested in making the club successful or use it as their own laundry.

That's impossible in Italy.
 
In sports were less money is involved in absolute (Basketball, Waterpolo, Volleyball) minor countries have excellent results.

I'd say however that until the day when UEFA "locks" the CL to only the major leagues, minor countries should still be happy. Making to the group stage alone is *a lot* of money for them (think of Ludogorets, Dinamo Kyev, Celtic, Rostov etc) that allows them to invest.

And there's always the EL.

Depends on the small country. In a country without much football tradition or historically successful clubs such as Slovenia or Bulgaria, I'm sure people don't mind that much; not to mention that in many of those countries people support a foreign club instead of local ones. I know a Slovenian guy who supports Bayern München and once met a Slovak who supports Liverpool, per example.

To some clubs, playing in Europe is already a bonus, but for others playing in the EL is considered a failure unless your club wins it. Here in Portugal; Benfica, Sporting and Porto fans consider a failure to finish 3rd in the CL group stage and then falling onto the EL and ending up not winning it. I'm sure Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord fans feel the same about that competition, same for fans of top Russian, Ukrainian and Turkish clubs.

Perhaps in a few decades domestic leagues will eventually stop existing as we know and regional leagues/divisions will be founded such as Iberian League, Benelux League, Balkan league, Scandinavian League, UK plus Rep. of Ireland League, etc. I don't think that would be good for football since Europe isn't a sole country like the United States or China, but I can't help but think that UEFA has been entertaining the idea of a possible European Super League for a while now.

That's impossible in Italy.

It does seem to be a very typical Portuguese thing, indeed. Although in Spain Barcelona and Real Madrid also function that way. Same for Panathinaikos in Greece. German clubs tend to work that way as well if I'm not mistaken.

Ever wondered why German and Portuguese clubs have so many paid registered members? That's the reason. To be able to vote in club elections. Benfica used to have about 200k+ ones, being ranked number 1 in the world, now Bayern München are number 1 in that department.
 

piotor

Pallone d'oro
  Moderatore
In Basketball we have already seen the rise of the Euroleague, which has pretty much become a league of its own.

In football I think there are not enough markets to make the league sufficiently varied (Italy, France, Spain, England, Germany) and on the other hand there'd be too many teams left out.

Therefore I think that CL will become bigger and bigger, but will never "replace" national tournaments, which have far too much prestige.

A merging of national "minor" leagues instead is more likely (see Basketball once again) simply to make them more competitive. Swedish football would gain a lot in a league with Norwegian, Danish and Finnish teams.

Therefore i'd say: Superleague no, but balkan/baltic/nordic leagues probably yes.
 
Alto