Most of this article rails on the growing inequality between soccer super clubs and the rest. Here’s a couple of quotes from it:
‘Has soccer embraced capitalism more than any other industry?’
‘I really do think these people running the clubs are locked into a way of thinking that is sort of self-destructive…’
Yet, the author never mentions the obvious: Football/soccer has grown more and more popular with these super clubs. Also, there’s a reason the super clubs are bringing in so much money — fans love them.
Now, he can argue that this might be a bad thing that might eventually lead to a decline in soccer popularity. He could also point to evidence to support this point. But, he does neither. He just assumes that’s the case.
I’d argue that the bigger risk to popularity of the sport is folks like him who would like to project their personal preferences onto the sport without any evidence that their personal preference would help. It just ‘sounds good’ to them.
The following quote is a good example:
Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin made the issue front and centre of his introduction to the body’s 2020 annual benchmarking report, citing the “threats” and “risks” of “globalisation-fuelled revenue polarisation”.
When I see that, it raises my suspicions that actions like the recent UEFA banning of Manchester City from the Champions League for two years are nothing more than bureaucrats on power trips — and nothing makes me lose interest in a sport more than busybody bureaucrats cordoning off a child’s game as their own personal fiefdom (wink wink USSF).
You want to f up sport? Go start your own sport and you can do it with what you want.
What the author and UEFA president doesn’t understand is that folks like to follow their super clubs and they also like some non-super clubs and local clubs. That’s part of what makes the sport interesting to us.