Money killing club football.

[Hibrandenburg]

Ok, this has been known for quite some time, but the new FIFA statts would seem to back this up.

Holland are top of the FIFA world rankings with their national team but their best club only comes in at 43rd.

Thoughts?

[Viva_Palmeiras]

FIFA is killing football. Too much money and wherever that's the case there is power corruption and lies.
Apart from organise competitions, reject reasonable requests for goal line technology what as regulAtors have they done to ensure the protection and sustainability of club football.
Football clubs have shown they are not capable of policing themselves
In other businesses - were told football has been a business for over a decade now - if there is lack of competition in the market regulators step in - why has thisnot been dine and been sooner. The debt position is obscene. So Spanish players went on strike to ensure better protection for players
Who's clubs go to the wall - well the inflated wage demands
Are part of the problem.
At the route of this However are the tv companies like sky IMO

[Beefster]

At the route of this However are the tv companies like sky IMO

If myself and millions of others didn't pay a fortune for Sky Sports every month, Sky wouldn't pay huge sums to clubs. Sky are only reacting to public demand.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Not just about money.

Rangers / Celtic spend far more money than the two teams they were beaten by.

Shamrock Rovers got through to the group stage including players who were punted by Hearts (Sives) and a centre forward bought from Brechin (Gary Twigg). The guy who scored the winning goal was punted by Yogi's Falkirk after two seasons.

Rangers / Celtic have been bleating on about money for the last 15 years, ie if only they had more money they would be world beaters, if only the accursed SFA / UEFA / FA / FIFA would let them into the EPL / set up an Atlantic League / set up a Euro Super League.

Maybe they should think instead about how they spend the money they do have.

[Kaiser1962]

Not just about money.

Rangers / Celtic spend far more money than the two teams they were beaten by.

Shamrock Rovers got through to the group stage including players who were punted by Hearts (Sives) and a centre forward bought from Brechin (Gary Twigg). The guy who scored the winning goal was punted by Yogi's Falkirk after two seasons.

Rangers / Celtic have been bleating on about money for the last 15 years, ie if only they had more money they would be world beaters, if only the accursed SFA / UEFA / FA / FIFA would let them into the EPL / set up an Atlantic League / set up a Euro Super League.

Maybe they should think instead about how they spend the money they do have.

Generally money helps. It will be interesting to see if Shamrock make an impact how long that side is together, I would guess at January.

That said, however, technically Maribor were streets ahead of us and have now beaten the Hun. Zion have beaten Celtic easily and their stadium is smaller than ours or others in Scotland. Their income probably reflects this.

[CFC]

what as regulAtors have they done to ensure the protection and sustainability of club football.I might be wrong but I don't think that is the remit of FIFA. That should be the responsibility of the national FA's. The Germans seem to run a sustainable club game and yet they function under FIFA same as everyone else.

[s.a.m]

I might be wrong but I don't think that is the remit of FIFA. That should be the responsibility of the national FA's. The Germans seem to run a sustainable club game and yet they function under FIFA same as everyone else.

:agree:
Whatever FIFA and UEFA's wrongs may be, I don't think Scotland's uselessness as a footballing nation is among them. I think we've done that all by ourselves. Our own regulatory bodies, the clubs, the players, the media (including TV companies)(remembering, though, that clubs and authorities have sought and agreed to these TV deals....), local authorities, the Scottish government, the fans.........we could probably all think of plenty others as well as these who have played a part in the decline of the Scottish game.

It's up to us to sort it out. Unfortunately, given past experience, it looks unlikely. Those who have it in their gift to sort it out are fuelled by self-interest, limited by resourcing problems, lack of interest, lack of insight..............

[one day maybe...]

If the powers that be can't improve our game with the decisions they make, then there is not much the humble fan can do, other than vote with non attendance, which in my opinion is what is already happening. Now that every one of the Scottish teams is out of Europe is there any need for Sunday games? (nope), but we will still get them and other ludicrous kick off times.

[green glory]

One of the things I feel is most detrimental to the financial state of Scottish football, is the lack of UK wide coverage/press attention. Because much of the UK press is based in London, there is a tendency to only cover the English game. Obviously most people in the press there will naturally support English teams, this goes without saying, but I do feel the press in London have a duty to be representative of all four corners of Britain, The vast difference in attention given to the English game results in a massive difference in advertising revenues in particular. The only real difference between English and Scottish football is the amount of money they can spend on good foreign players. That's why they have silly expectations when it comes to the World Cup etc. It's not English players that make the English game good.

:flag:

[GloryGlory]

Generally money helps. It will be interesting to see if Shamrock make an impact how long that side is together, I would guess at January.

That said, however, technically Maribor were streets ahead of us and have now beaten the Hun. Zion have beaten Celtic easily and their stadium is smaller than ours or others in Scotland. Their income probably reflects this.

Nail, head, hit. We as a nation just do not produce footballers who are technically and tactically competent enough. IMO, the whole structure of youth football needs an overhaul, with a national blueprint of skills development, tactical development, backed up with physical conditioning, diet and nutrition awareness for professional athletes, - you name it, we need it. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc produce better footballers and athletes than we do. Yet Scottish football still exudes this "everyone's out of step except us" mentality.

It will take 10-15 years to start producing footballers fit (in every way) for the modern European game, yet I don't see any recognition of the need to change, let alone urgency to get on and do what is needed.

[Thecat23]

What i think is this drops right down to the kids growing up in this day and age. They don't have many places to go out and play football, and most kids now would prefer to sit in and play the PS3. We need to remove these "No ball game" signs at public parks and start going round schools telling kids about the history of our game and how it's falling apart. Get it hammered into them that they could be the next big thing. How supporting you're local team is better than sitting watching Man U on the tv. Being at a game at any level for me is better than sitting at the tv. it's a day out. To many money men are also ruining this game as some have said. Football needs to go back to basics and for that to happen it may get worse before it gets better. We need guys like the Baxters, Laws etc.. Scottish football is on it's knees but we can get back up and become a nation to be proud of again but only it there is fundamental changes from grass roots right to the top. When i was growing up all i did was play football and going in for you're tea was a burden and you were right back out.

[Stevie Reid]

Generally money helps. It will be interesting to see if Shamrock make an impact how long that side is together, I would guess at January.

That said, however, technically Maribor were streets ahead of us and have now beaten the Hun. Zion have beaten Celtic easily and their stadium is smaller than ours or others in Scotland. Their income probably reflects this.

Absolutely spot on, and one of the most infuriating things I've read on here was them described as an "Eastern European pub team" (though that was usually from a poster having a pop at Hughes).

Tom English gets it right here: -

http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Tom-English-Scottish-football39s-arrogance.6825478.jp?articlepage=2

[Gus]

One of the things I feel is most detrimental to the financial state of Scottish football, is the lack of UK wide coverage/press attention. Because much of the UK press is based in London, there is a tendency to only cover the English game. Obviously most people in the press there will naturally support English teams, this goes without saying, but I do feel the press in London have a duty to be representative of all four corners of Britain, The vast difference in attention given to the English game results in a massive difference in advertising revenues in particular. The only real difference between English and Scottish football is the amount of money they can spend on good foreign players. That's why they have silly expectations when it comes to the World Cup etc. It's not English players that make the English game good.

:flag:

:confused: .........Scotland have their own newspapers etc....the SPL is not advertised at all down south from my experience, us English are quite self absorbed like that. Unless it happens in the EPL then :bye:. Doesn't make it right.

It's a supply and demand with the attention. Do you REALLY think if the Daily Mail or other London based newspaper/advertising toffs started giving a page right up on a Inverness v Dunfermline game more people would be interested and it would increase revenue through advertising? I don't. Downfall moneywise for Scottish clubs was the demise of Setanta (sp?) SPL clubs were quick to snap that deal up but when that goes tits up they are up the creek

What I think is wrong with SPL football goes down to grass roots, there is no decent infrastructure. I guess it does all boil down to money and potential revenue avenues but the goverment and clubs should be working together to implent this. The amatuer pitches in and around Edinburgh are a disgrace & I know where I grew up (tory country :greengrin) the pitches have always been kept in great condition, little things like that.

Sorry to go on. Just think there are alot more things closer to "home" that could assist Scottish Football. Instead with concerning ourselves with your selfish neighbours (me)

Anyway sod the English

Lets pump those Jam Tarts

:hibees

[ancient hibee]

The rot started because the OF realised that it took pots of money to monitor a couple of hundred young kids in the hope of unearthing half a dozen players when they could cherry pick the other Scottish clubs.The really great OF teams usually carried 8/9 home grown players while the contract system meant that other clubs could keep their best players more easily.It's no coincidence that Dundee Utd.won the league when they had most of their players on 7 year contracts.Other than Ferguson and McGeady I can't think of any players that the OF developed who you would back to hold a place in a top team in the last 10 years.When they had Charlie Adam Rangers didn't realise they had someone who might make it.The money is a red herring-in the early 2000s the OF were regularly in the top 20 of the Deloittes list of highest revenue earners of worldwide football clubs.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The rest of us have known for years that Scottish football is dead on its feet, did the weegies only realise last night?
Their heads have been buried in the sand for too long, the I'm alright Jack OF mentality came back and bit them on the 2 cheeks of the same arse last night, dinnae see much changing any time soon.

[Kaiser1962]

The rot started because the OF realised that it took pots of money to monitor a couple of hundred young kids in the hope of unearthing half a dozen players when they could cherry pick the other Scottish clubs.The really great OF teams usually carried 8/9 home grown players while the contract system meant that other clubs could keep their best players more easily.It's no coincidence that Dundee Utd.won the league when they had most of their players on 7 year contracts.Other than Ferguson and McGeady I can't think of any players that the OF developed who you would back to hold a place in a top team in the last 10 years.When they had Charlie Adam Rangers didn't realise they had someone who might make it.The money is a red herring-in the early 2000s the OF were regularly in the top 20 of the Deloittes list of highest revenue earners of worldwide football clubs.

They were but TV money has increased beyond all comprehension in the last decade and has increased by almost a £billion in that time.

In the Jim McLean days he would have a player on some sort of draconian contract and if he didnt accept Jim's deal if he ever made it to contracts end, then he didnt play. United retained his registration and he couldnt play elsewhere, even if his contract had expired. Bosman intervened and hence we see the short deals we do today and a huge turnover of players. I dont think its finished yet though and expect freedom of movement to come at some time.

WE have witnessed Hibs playing opponents from the old Eastern Bloc over the past few years and their players were light years ahead of ours in terms of control and ability. I dont believe they have better facilities or indeed a better, more secure environment so whatever it is they are doing we need to learn how we can do it here.

[Twa Cairpets]

Nail, head, hit. We as a nation just do not produce footballers who are technically and tactically competent enough. IMO, the whole structure of youth football needs an overhaul, with a national blueprint of skills development, tactical development, backed up with physical conditioning, diet and nutrition awareness for professional athletes, - you name it, we need it. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc produce better footballers and athletes than we do. Yet Scottish football still exudes this "everyone's out of step except us" mentality.

It will take 10-15 years to start producing footballers fit (in every way) for the modern European game, yet I don't see any recognition of the need to change, let alone urgency to get on and do what is needed.

Having been involved with youth football for the last 15 years or thereabouts as a coach and referee, I think you're spot on with laying the blame at youth football. Not all of it by any means, as there are some cracking clubs and some great people involved at the SYFA, but significant swathes of it provide access for eegits and numpties to live out there personal fantasies.

Here's the issues to my mind

Too many games.
Having made the transition from soccer sevens at under 12, the most succesful (in terms of winning trophies at any rate) can suddenly expect to play any where up to 40-50 games in a season at under 13. That's twelve year old kids who've just started secondary school, with bodies and minds going through plenty change playing on (mostly) poor pitches usually with adult expectation lumped upon them, with this continuing for the next 6 years for those who dont get fed up with it.

The majority of other northern European countries (England excluded) generally play no more than 20 games in a season. The focus is on develoment of skil land touch, not on winning a trophy or being physically the best.

Attitudes
I'm sure plenty will see nothing wrong with the idea of winning being the only thing of importance - the concept of "show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser" being a fair rule to live by. While there is an argument to be made for this in the adult game, I utterly loathe this attitude in youth football. Season after season I see mostly angry men shouting at kids. The classics are "less of the fancy stuff son" as some poor laddie tries to do something with a bit of flare and "clear your lines" or "get rid" as the ball arrives at the feet of a centre half. The biggest roars of approval are as some kid (usually bigger than his opponent) does a crunching tackle and the ball goes flying out of play.

I've seen boys club training sessions consist of a five mile run followed by a quick game at u15's. As some (good) coach once said a piano player doesnt get good by running around a piano 50 times, so give the kids a ball to play with. Societal changes means that kids generally dont go ur and kick a ball about with their mates as much as they used to, which is why the time they have in their clubs is critical at developing skill and confidence on the ball.

The attitude for lots of clubs is that winning is everything, which often translates to snarling aggression on the pitch acting as a substitute for the ability to trap a ball.

Coaches for lots of clubs on the sidelines seem to exist in a state of perpetual mild fury with a default attitude of being angry at their players. Not all, and not even the majority, but a lot
of them and it staggers me that parents of kids on the park allow their kids to be yelled at for the temerity of misplacing a pass. Pretty much every game I referee I hear kids muttering under their breath at their coaches after they've been told what theyve done is rubbish.

Solution
Get rid of the win at all costs mentality, even at pro youth where they dont have leagues, the record of winning and losing is what defines a coaches success. IIRC 86% of players in a study a few years ago at academy level in England were born in the first half of their calendar year in any given age group. Why? Because they were bigger. A similar statistic I am sure is the case up here. Big = good. Tell that to Messi.

Develop players to be confident on the ball, to be able to control it and turn and pass, and let them sort out what works and doesnt work without being harangued by a red-faced loon on the sideline. When they're adults, and have the capacity to understand shape and pressure and all the rest, then they have already the basic tools of being a footballer to take on the field. Much though I liked Matty Jack, I'd prefer to watch a team of Latapys than a team of Jacks.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

I might be wrong but I don't think that is the remit of FIFA. That should be the responsibility of the national FA's. The Germans seem to run a sustainable club game and yet they function under FIFA same as everyone else.

But to have a more consistent approach would need eufa or FIFA to step in otherwise it's just the likes of Germany.

[NOLA]

Having been involved with youth football for the last 15 years or thereabouts as a coach and referee, I think you're spot on with laying the blame at youth football. Not all of it by any means, as there are some cracking clubs and some great people involved at the SYFA, but significant swathes of it provide access for eegits and numpties to live out there personal fantasies.

Here's the issues to my mind

Too many games.
Having made the transition from soccer sevens at under 12, the most succesful (in terms of winning trophies at any rate) can suddenly expect to play any where up to 40-50 games in a season at under 13. That's twelve year old kids who've just started secondary school, with bodies and minds going through plenty change playing on (mostly) poor pitches usually with adult expectation lumped upon them, with this continuing for the next 6 years for those who dont get fed up with it.

The majority of other northern European countries (England excluded) generally play no more than 20 games in a season. The focus is on develoment of skil land touch, not on winning a trophy or being physically the best.

Attitudes
I'm sure plenty will see nothing wrong with the idea of winning being the only thing of importance - the concept of "show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser" being a fair rule to live by. While there is an argument to be made for this in the adult game, I utterly loathe this attitude in youth football. Season after season I see mostly angry men shouting at kids. The classics are "less of the fancy stuff son" as some poor laddie tries to do something with a bit of flare and "clear your lines" or "get rid" as the ball arrives at the feet of a centre half. The biggest roars of approval are as some kid (usually bigger than his opponent) does a crunching tackle and the ball goes flying out of play.

I've seen boys club training sessions consist of a five mile run followed by a quick game at u15's. As some (good) coach once said a piano player doesnt get good by running around a piano 50 times, so give the kids a ball to play with. Societal changes means that kids generally dont go ur and kick a ball about with their mates as much as they used to, which is why the time they have in their clubs is critical at developing skill and confidence on the ball.

The attitude for lots of clubs is that winning is everything, which often translates to snarling aggression on the pitch acting as a substitute for the ability to trap a ball.

Coaches for lots of clubs on the sidelines seem to exist in a state of perpetual mild fury with a default attitude of being angry at their players. Not all, and not even the majority, but a lot
of them and it staggers me that parents of kids on the park allow their kids to be yelled at for the temerity of misplacing a pass. Pretty much every game I referee I hear kids muttering under their breath at their coaches after they've been told what theyve done is rubbish.

Solution
Get rid of the win at all costs mentality, even at pro youth where they dont have leagues, the record of winning and losing is what defines a coaches success. IIRC 86% of players in a study a few years ago at academy level in England were born in the first half of their calendar year in any given age group. Why? Because they were bigger. A similar statistic I am sure is the case up here. Big = good. Tell that to Messi.

Develop players to be confident on the ball, to be able to control it and turn and pass, and let them sort out what works and doesnt work without being harangued by a red-faced loon on the sideline. When they're adults, and have the capacity to understand shape and pressure and all the rest, then they have already the basic tools of being a footballer to take on the field. Much though I liked Matty Jack, I'd prefer to watch a team of Latapys than a team of Jacks.
:top marks excellent post, you should send that to the powers that be! the Dutch have a brilliant system in place, and have done for many years now.

[Kaiser1962]

Get rid of the win at all costs mentality, even at pro youth where they dont have leagues, the record of winning and losing is what defines a coaches success. IIRC 86% of players in a study a few years ago at academy level in England were born in the first half of their calendar year in any given age group. Why? Because they were bigger. A similar statistic I am sure is the case up here. Big = good. Tell that to Messi.


Trimmed your excellent post a bit :greengrin

In Rugby Union we always graded youngsters by age, I believe it's similar in football. You could have an 11yo that runs through the rest of the 10-12's and did it the group before and will do it the group after and it wouldnt even itself out till all the guys reach semi-junior status and the same stage of development.

In New Zealand the same 11yo would be thrown in with 14yo's and if he still did it he would be thrown in the next group and he would eventually hit a wall so he would develop and the coaches would see if he had any ability.

Simple ideas are often the best.

[Alfred E Newman]

The rot started because the OF realised that it took pots of money to monitor a couple of hundred young kids in the hope of unearthing half a dozen players when they could cherry pick the other Scottish clubs.The really great OF teams usually carried 8/9 home grown players while the contract system meant that other clubs could keep their best players more easily.It's no coincidence that Dundee Utd.won the league when they had most of their players on 7 year contracts.Other than Ferguson and McGeady I can't think of any players that the OF developed who you would back to hold a place in a top team in the last 10 years.When they had Charlie Adam Rangers didn't realise they had someone who might make it.The money is a red herring-in the early 2000s the OF were regularly in the top 20 of the Deloittes list of highest revenue earners of worldwide football clubs.

You are absolutely right in what you say but I also feel that when Scottish clubs were able to compete concistantly in European competitions it was by playing what was then a traditional Scottish style game with sides full of home grown players. I would not advocate resorting to aimless hoofball but Scottish clubs at that time based their game on wingers and a more direct style of football. we are now trying to play European clubs at their own game with our clubs loaded with second rate foriegn imports. Our game now seems to involve endless passing back and forward with little or no goalmouth action at the end of it.