Speaking on the BBC TV programme Inside Sport last night, Celtic manager Gordon Strachan made clear his belief that in the not-too-distant future the Champions League would be replaced by a form of European Super League.
In reply to the oft-repeated suggestion that Celtic and Rangers might one day join the Premier League in order to benefit from playing sterner opposition, Strachan said:
"I think in years to come there will be a European league with 54 or 60 clubs. That's the way everybody will get round it.
"There will be a new structure, a new body" he went on. "The powers that be, the businessmen coming into football now, will say 'forget FIFA, forget UEFA - we're so powerful, we'll have three leagues with the best 60 clubs'.
"And you know what? Preposterous and unthinkable though it might seem at the moment, I personally think it'll happen too. By my reckoning, I'll see it towards the end of my lifetime, which in real terms means 'by 2050.'"
Anyway, we here at Some People Are On The Pitch like a bit of prophesying so we thought we'd put our thinking caps on and try and work out what a European Super League would look like based loosely on the best that the continent has to offer right now.
Though this was anything but a scientific experiment, we were quick to realise that there are any number of ways you could calculate such a metaphoric notion. How many clubs would you allow per country? At the moment, the most you'll find is four, so that's the maximum figure we adopted for our own means.
Yet could this figure rise higher? Knowing the way big business and high finance gets involved in football these days, I for one wouldn't be surprised if a European Super League might end up featuring anything up to eight big clubs from places such as England, Germany, Italy and Spain.
And what of the smaller clubs and the countries they derive from? How many places would they be allowed in a system featuring three leagues of twenty clubs? Again, the cynic in me can see the lesser lights on the continent barely getting a look in.
Luckily for us in our fair-minded, level-headed fantasy world, we can put that straight though. What we've therefore done in our allegorical list is allowed at least one club to take part from most, although not all, the main countries in Europe.
So here it is then - your first glimpse at a future world where, according to Gordon Strachan, FIFA and UEFA would look on helplessly as an independent body took over the running of European football's biggest competition. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the European Super League (sponsored by Some People Are On The Pitch...)
League 1
Arsenal (ENG)
Barcelona (SPA)
Bayern Munich (GER)
Benfica (POR)
Bremen (GER)
Chelsea (ENG)
Dynamo Kyiv (UKR)
Internazionale (ITA)
Lazio (ITA)
Liverpool (ENG)
Lyon (FRA)
Man. United (ENG)
Milan (ITA)
Porto (POR)
Real Madrid (SPA)
Roma (ITA)
Schalke (GER)
Sevilla (SPA)
Stuttgart (GER)
Valencia (SPA)
League 2
Ajax (NED)
Anderlecht (BEL)
AZ (NED)
Besiktas (TUR)
Bordeaux (FRA)
Celtic (SCO)
Club Brugge (BEL)
CSKA Moskva (RUS)
Dinamo Zagreb (CRO)
Fenerbahce (TUR)
Galatasaray (TUR)
Marseille (FRA)
Olympiacos (GRE)
Panathinaikos (GRE)
PSV (NED)
Slavia Prague (CZE)
Sparta Prague (CZE)
Sporting (POR)
Steaua (ROM)
Zenit (RUS)
League 3
AaB (DEN)
AIK Solna (SWE)
Anorthosis (CYP)
Basel (SWZ)
Brann (NOR)
Copenhagen (DEN)
CSKA Sofia (BUL)
Drogheda (IRE)
Groningen (SWE)
Hajduk Split (CRO)
Hapoel Tel Aviv (ISR)
Maccabi Tel Aviv (ISR)
Rangers (SCO)
Ried (AUT)
Rosenborg (NOR)
Salzburg (AUT)
Shakhtar (UKR)
Spartak Moscow (RUS)
Tampere (FIN)
Zurich (SWZ)
A reminder then that this is just a bit of fun - if we've put a team in the wrong league, don't get shirty with us! It's just our spin on how a European Super League might look.
That said, given the lists above, who would you put in which league and who do you think might win or be relegated in each case? Let us know what your imagination's telling you, or if you have an opinion about whether a European Super League is even viable, tell us that too. We look forward to hearing your thoughts...
Showing posts with label UEFA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UEFA. Show all posts
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
A ban of two halves
With all the tenacity that could earn them jobs in the UN Peacekeeping Corps, representatives from AC Milan have successfully negotiated with UEFA to ensure that the two game ban on goalkeeper Dida is halved with immediate effect.
Dida, you'll remember, did a fine job of acting out the part of an assassinated bystander when Celtic played AC Milan recently. As the game ended, a Celtic 'fan' ran onto the pitch following what turned out to be a winning goal for The Bhoys and tapped the Brazilian lightly on the side of the face. Dida gave chase before falling to the ground in dramatic fashion whereupon he received 'treatment' and was stretchered off clutching an ice pack.
To my mind, this shows nothing but weak, lily-livered administration on the part of the UEFA officials dealing with the matter. I think they've also missed a trick here. Had I been negotiating with the AC Milan representatives, I'd have said "Sure - we'll cut Dida's ban by half... as long as we can:
a) ...cut Celtic's fine by half"
b) ...cut Dida's match fee by half"
c) ...cut the number of hands Dida's allowed to use in his next game by half"
d) ...cut the number of points AC Milan accumulate in the group by half"
...and so on and so on.
What kind of message does UEFA think this will send out to anyone else who thinks they can bring bad fortune on their opponents by embarking on a career in acting? Dida will now only need to sit out tomorrow night's game against the mighty Shakhtar Donetsk before taking his place back in the side again, so how much of a punishment is that? Nothing short of a ban from the entire competition will do as far as I'm concerned and that's that.
Just keep this little incident in mind the next time you hear about UEFA's Fair Play initiative. If you prevent yourself from laughing openly with derision when you do, congratulations.
Dida, you'll remember, did a fine job of acting out the part of an assassinated bystander when Celtic played AC Milan recently. As the game ended, a Celtic 'fan' ran onto the pitch following what turned out to be a winning goal for The Bhoys and tapped the Brazilian lightly on the side of the face. Dida gave chase before falling to the ground in dramatic fashion whereupon he received 'treatment' and was stretchered off clutching an ice pack.
To my mind, this shows nothing but weak, lily-livered administration on the part of the UEFA officials dealing with the matter. I think they've also missed a trick here. Had I been negotiating with the AC Milan representatives, I'd have said "Sure - we'll cut Dida's ban by half... as long as we can:
a) ...cut Celtic's fine by half"
b) ...cut Dida's match fee by half"
c) ...cut the number of hands Dida's allowed to use in his next game by half"
d) ...cut the number of points AC Milan accumulate in the group by half"
...and so on and so on.
What kind of message does UEFA think this will send out to anyone else who thinks they can bring bad fortune on their opponents by embarking on a career in acting? Dida will now only need to sit out tomorrow night's game against the mighty Shakhtar Donetsk before taking his place back in the side again, so how much of a punishment is that? Nothing short of a ban from the entire competition will do as far as I'm concerned and that's that.
Just keep this little incident in mind the next time you hear about UEFA's Fair Play initiative. If you prevent yourself from laughing openly with derision when you do, congratulations.
Saturday, 25 August 2007
Saturday Shout: A league for champions
I used to like Michel Platini. When I was growing up, I can specifically recall seeing him gliding around the pitch on what seemed like a cushion of air during the 1986 World Cup. His every movement had such grace, every ball he kicked seemed to go exactly where it should and every scoring opportunity he had seemed to result in a goal. The man was a legend.
You can appreciate the optimism I had, therefore, when the former French captain gained the presidency of UEFA in January this year. Here was a man who promised sensibility along with new ideas to make the European game better than it's ever been before.
How sad, then, that I should find myself this week shaking my head in disbelief at the new idea Platini has suggested. Having failed in his bid to reduce the maximum number of participating clubs per country in the Champions League from four to three, he's now produced a compromise: for one of those four teams to be the winner of that country's main cup competition.
Now at this stage I feel the need to give you some sort of tangible image of what that could mean. Going by Platini's grand scheme and based on some of the more recent FA Cup Finals, teams like West Ham, Southampton and Millwall could have come dangerously close to playing alongside the likes of Barcelona, Milan and Valencia.
Incomprehensible, you may think, to give the FA Cup winner a place in the Champions League rather than the team that finished fourth in the Premier League, but it could step closer to reality next week when Platini announces his plans officially. Yet for all the bewildering lack of logic Platini's scheme contains, there's a simple solution which I've managed to come up with.
My idea is to take away the qualification place from the team that finishes fourth, then do so for the team that finishes third and second too. What you have after that is a concept which might seem bizarre, but I think it could work. It'd be a league featuring teams from around Europe who are specifically champions in their own country. A sort of 'European Champions' League', if you will.
But here's the masterstroke. If you take the current format of the competition where the first round proper contains 32 teams, what you'd have is 32 countries from all over the continent represented - not the fifteen that took part last season. It's not easy to get much more European than that, be honest.
So here's my thoughts on your new idea, Mr. Platini: if you want to improve the diversity of the Champions League and do away with the rampant commercialism and money-mindedness that permeates the game these days, forget about cup winners - in fact forget about league runners-up. Make the Champions League a league for champions and let's get a sense of realism back in this competition.
Well now I've said all I've got to say, what are your thoughts? This is, after all, the feature where you're encouraged to put your head over the pulpit and make your thoughts known. Leave us a comment and tell me whether I'm talking sense or talking out of my... soapbox.
You can appreciate the optimism I had, therefore, when the former French captain gained the presidency of UEFA in January this year. Here was a man who promised sensibility along with new ideas to make the European game better than it's ever been before.
How sad, then, that I should find myself this week shaking my head in disbelief at the new idea Platini has suggested. Having failed in his bid to reduce the maximum number of participating clubs per country in the Champions League from four to three, he's now produced a compromise: for one of those four teams to be the winner of that country's main cup competition.
Now at this stage I feel the need to give you some sort of tangible image of what that could mean. Going by Platini's grand scheme and based on some of the more recent FA Cup Finals, teams like West Ham, Southampton and Millwall could have come dangerously close to playing alongside the likes of Barcelona, Milan and Valencia.
Incomprehensible, you may think, to give the FA Cup winner a place in the Champions League rather than the team that finished fourth in the Premier League, but it could step closer to reality next week when Platini announces his plans officially. Yet for all the bewildering lack of logic Platini's scheme contains, there's a simple solution which I've managed to come up with.
My idea is to take away the qualification place from the team that finishes fourth, then do so for the team that finishes third and second too. What you have after that is a concept which might seem bizarre, but I think it could work. It'd be a league featuring teams from around Europe who are specifically champions in their own country. A sort of 'European Champions' League', if you will.
But here's the masterstroke. If you take the current format of the competition where the first round proper contains 32 teams, what you'd have is 32 countries from all over the continent represented - not the fifteen that took part last season. It's not easy to get much more European than that, be honest.
So here's my thoughts on your new idea, Mr. Platini: if you want to improve the diversity of the Champions League and do away with the rampant commercialism and money-mindedness that permeates the game these days, forget about cup winners - in fact forget about league runners-up. Make the Champions League a league for champions and let's get a sense of realism back in this competition.
Well now I've said all I've got to say, what are your thoughts? This is, after all, the feature where you're encouraged to put your head over the pulpit and make your thoughts known. Leave us a comment and tell me whether I'm talking sense or talking out of my... soapbox.
Thursday, 12 July 2007
Hitting the Intertoto Jackpot
When I was young, I could always predict what my Dad would be doing at 5 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. He'd be fishing around in a cupboard somewhere, trying to find his Pools coupon under the misconception that he was about to become rich beyond his wildest dreams.
In the days before the Lotto elbowed its way into the public's affections, the Football Pools were just about the only way you could spend £1 and win £1,000,000 but as with all forms of gambling, there was a catch. To win the money, you had to correctly predict eight to ten drawn matches out of a possible 50-or-so. Not as easy as you might think, as my Dad would have told you.
Yet the lure of winning even a share of a fortune, let alone a whole one, was something that tempted many thousands of people all over Britain into playing the game. Every Saturday afternoon, a large proportion of the public would pore over their coupons showing the English and Scottish league football matches as the classified results were read out on television. Hopes would build, dreams would fill the air, yet by 5.10 pm most of those coupons had been screwed up and thrown in the bin.
When the football season in Britain ended every summer, an air of anticlimax would descend for several weeks, reinforced palpably by the sight of the Pools coupons which appeared in the shops. Gone were the familiar names - Liverpool, Crystal Palace, Shrewsbury, Rangers, Partick Thistle et al - and in their place a set of Australian doppelgangers appeared. Who could possibly predict the result of a bunch of matches involving teams with names like Wollongong and Joondalup?
Luckily for the Europeans on the continent, there were no such problems thanks to a competition Britain was blissfully ignorant of. Its name: The Intertoto Cup.
The Intertoto Cup was created specifically to extend the Pools season in central Europe when league games came to an end in the summer. Its creators were Ernst Thommen and Austrian Karl Rappan, a Swiss and Austrian partnership who initially harboured ambitions to create a European League. Having failed to make that materialise, they turned their attention to creating a competition that Pools companies could use to maximise their income.
In 1961, they put the idea to UEFA who politely showed them the door, refusing to give their name to the venture. Not downhearted, Thommen launched the tournament without them. It was initially called The International Football Cup and took the form of various group games leading to a knock-out phase. The first winners were Ajax who beat Feyenoord 4-2 in the Final but in the years that followed the competition was dominated by teams from Czechoslovakia, Poland and East and West Germany.
1967 saw a change to the format of the competition as the knock-out round was scrapped altogether. This meant there were no overall winners and consequently no trophy was awarded - something amounting to a farce for what was essentially a 'Cup' competition. As a result, interest tailed off and the competition was discontinued, but that wasn't the end of the road for the Intertoto.
In 1995, UEFA decided (belatedly) to take an interest by bringing it back to life - this time as a means to getting some of Europe's lesser clubs into the UEFA Cup. Using a similar format to the original, the two semi-finalists won a qualifying place but because there was no outright winner, no trophy could be awarded either.
No matter. The prize itself was enough to attract many teams to take part and in the first few years of its reintroduction, French teams snapped up the UEFA Cup births with great aplomb. Bordeaux, inspired by the likes of Zinedine Zidane, Bixente Lizarazu and Christophe Dugarry were in fact so committed to the cause that they went all the way to the UEFA Cup Final in that first season.
UEFA introduced a third qualifying place in 1996 and by the end of the 1997 competition, six out of the eight UEFA Cup qualifying places had gone to French teams. Their grip on the event started to loosen slightly as the 21st century approached but the Intertoto Cup was polarising opinion greatly at this time. Some teams were opposed to playing football in June and July - a time normally set aside to allow players to rest - while others, such as Juventus and Valencia, were desperate for the chance to maintain the revenue gained by playing in a European competition.
In 2006, UEFA made their most recent change to the structure of the competition. Only one team was now allowed to take part from each country (unless exceptional circumstances prevailed) but eleven places were now up for grabs in the second qualifying round of the UEFA Cup. Out of those that made it that far, only Newcastle United managed to reach the Second Round proper, so by way of a reward UEFA gave them something which had previously being merely a figure of speech - The Intertoto Cup.
And so to 2007 where the competition is already gaining much attention, albeit for the wrong reasons. A recent second round match between Lithuanian club Vėtra and Legia Warsaw of Poland was abandoned due to serious crowd trouble which began during the half time interval. Legia's travelling fans had seen their team go 2-0 down prompting a pitch battle where stones and metal bars were used to attack police and cause damage to the stadium.
UEFA have since banned Legia Warsaw from the competition allowing Vėtra to progress to the Third Round where they will face Blackburn Rovers. It's here that some of the more recognisable names from European football enter the fray too. Atletico Madrid, Sampdoria, Hamburg and Lens will all be starting out on the long road to glory towards the end of this month, but for spectators all over the continent a different sort of ambition will be there to achieve - the one which involves putting a series of X's on a coupon and winning vast sums of money.
In the days before the Lotto elbowed its way into the public's affections, the Football Pools were just about the only way you could spend £1 and win £1,000,000 but as with all forms of gambling, there was a catch. To win the money, you had to correctly predict eight to ten drawn matches out of a possible 50-or-so. Not as easy as you might think, as my Dad would have told you.
Yet the lure of winning even a share of a fortune, let alone a whole one, was something that tempted many thousands of people all over Britain into playing the game. Every Saturday afternoon, a large proportion of the public would pore over their coupons showing the English and Scottish league football matches as the classified results were read out on television. Hopes would build, dreams would fill the air, yet by 5.10 pm most of those coupons had been screwed up and thrown in the bin.
When the football season in Britain ended every summer, an air of anticlimax would descend for several weeks, reinforced palpably by the sight of the Pools coupons which appeared in the shops. Gone were the familiar names - Liverpool, Crystal Palace, Shrewsbury, Rangers, Partick Thistle et al - and in their place a set of Australian doppelgangers appeared. Who could possibly predict the result of a bunch of matches involving teams with names like Wollongong and Joondalup?
Luckily for the Europeans on the continent, there were no such problems thanks to a competition Britain was blissfully ignorant of. Its name: The Intertoto Cup.
The Intertoto Cup was created specifically to extend the Pools season in central Europe when league games came to an end in the summer. Its creators were Ernst Thommen and Austrian Karl Rappan, a Swiss and Austrian partnership who initially harboured ambitions to create a European League. Having failed to make that materialise, they turned their attention to creating a competition that Pools companies could use to maximise their income.
In 1961, they put the idea to UEFA who politely showed them the door, refusing to give their name to the venture. Not downhearted, Thommen launched the tournament without them. It was initially called The International Football Cup and took the form of various group games leading to a knock-out phase. The first winners were Ajax who beat Feyenoord 4-2 in the Final but in the years that followed the competition was dominated by teams from Czechoslovakia, Poland and East and West Germany.
1967 saw a change to the format of the competition as the knock-out round was scrapped altogether. This meant there were no overall winners and consequently no trophy was awarded - something amounting to a farce for what was essentially a 'Cup' competition. As a result, interest tailed off and the competition was discontinued, but that wasn't the end of the road for the Intertoto.
In 1995, UEFA decided (belatedly) to take an interest by bringing it back to life - this time as a means to getting some of Europe's lesser clubs into the UEFA Cup. Using a similar format to the original, the two semi-finalists won a qualifying place but because there was no outright winner, no trophy could be awarded either.
No matter. The prize itself was enough to attract many teams to take part and in the first few years of its reintroduction, French teams snapped up the UEFA Cup births with great aplomb. Bordeaux, inspired by the likes of Zinedine Zidane, Bixente Lizarazu and Christophe Dugarry were in fact so committed to the cause that they went all the way to the UEFA Cup Final in that first season.
UEFA introduced a third qualifying place in 1996 and by the end of the 1997 competition, six out of the eight UEFA Cup qualifying places had gone to French teams. Their grip on the event started to loosen slightly as the 21st century approached but the Intertoto Cup was polarising opinion greatly at this time. Some teams were opposed to playing football in June and July - a time normally set aside to allow players to rest - while others, such as Juventus and Valencia, were desperate for the chance to maintain the revenue gained by playing in a European competition.
In 2006, UEFA made their most recent change to the structure of the competition. Only one team was now allowed to take part from each country (unless exceptional circumstances prevailed) but eleven places were now up for grabs in the second qualifying round of the UEFA Cup. Out of those that made it that far, only Newcastle United managed to reach the Second Round proper, so by way of a reward UEFA gave them something which had previously being merely a figure of speech - The Intertoto Cup.
And so to 2007 where the competition is already gaining much attention, albeit for the wrong reasons. A recent second round match between Lithuanian club Vėtra and Legia Warsaw of Poland was abandoned due to serious crowd trouble which began during the half time interval. Legia's travelling fans had seen their team go 2-0 down prompting a pitch battle where stones and metal bars were used to attack police and cause damage to the stadium.
UEFA have since banned Legia Warsaw from the competition allowing Vėtra to progress to the Third Round where they will face Blackburn Rovers. It's here that some of the more recognisable names from European football enter the fray too. Atletico Madrid, Sampdoria, Hamburg and Lens will all be starting out on the long road to glory towards the end of this month, but for spectators all over the continent a different sort of ambition will be there to achieve - the one which involves putting a series of X's on a coupon and winning vast sums of money.
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Calm down, Calm down
Liverpool fan and architect Paul Gregory, along with two friends, spent nearly £2,500 on flights, accommodation and tickets to see the Champions League Final 2007. As we know, many fans holding genuine tickets were refused entry to the ground whilst many with forged or no tickets got in to see the game.
Paul has since written to UEFA president Michel Platini seeking compensation. His letter makes interesting reading :
"I would like this to be reimbursed by Uefa. It's the least you can do for putting our lives at risk. If this is not forthcoming we intend to take action against Uefa through the British judicial system, and through the European Courts if necessary. It was only through good luck that Uefa avoided deaths.
"As a former shareholder in Liverpool FC I am the recipient of three €140 tickets for the Champions League final. All are still unused as we were refused entry into the stadium. I was herded, tear-gassed, kicked and baton-charged by riot police outside the stadium for the hour leading up to kick-off and way beyond.
"As the organising body, Uefa has a duty of care towards its legitimate ticket-holders in just the same way as any corporate body has towards its customers. This duty of care extends to having systems in place to deny entry to the stadium to non-ticket holders. Demonstrably these systems were not in place.
"While unsavoury elements of the Liverpool fans must take responsibility for their actions, so must Uefa take responsibility for its shortcomings. Uefa appears to have planned for a genteel corporate networking event. It took its eye off the ball and forgot about a football match between two of Europe's largest and most passionately supported football clubs, despite warnings weeks ahead forged tickets were likely to be in circulation.
"Not only did thousands gain entry to the stadium with amateurish, photo-copied forgeries (some not even bothering to print the reverse side of the ticket!) but, incredibly, some fans simply walked into the stadium with no ticket at all - forged or legitimate! Others waved a stadium map and gained entry. One fan gained entry to the press box with a photo-copied press pass.''
His journal of what happened that night makes interesting reading too :
"I can't even be accused of naivety as this was my sixth European Cup final and I arrived at the stadium an hour and a half before kick-off. Plenty of time to negotiate 'security', I thought.
"8.15pm: Arrived at stadium complex entrance arch. Everyone relaxed. Fans funnelled by railings into several entry points. It became apparent fairly quickly very few people were being let through. It also became apparent this was a holding operation.
"8.45: Crushing begins as fans see little progress. Panic beginning. Children lifted up and crying. Pushing from behind. Police respond by pushing back and forming an impenetrable barrier.
"9.00: I finally make it to the front. Extruded like toothpaste out of a tube into police line; 100m further on, a line of police buses with a bus-sized gap and riot police blocking it. Fans backing up here. It becomes apparent this is a similar holding operation. It looks like one or two are allowed through at a time to give the appearance of a checkpoint. Totally inadequate again. We hold up our tickets, to no avail.
"9.30: No one is getting through now. Police drive a bus in to close gap off completely. Crowd of 2,000-5,000 backing up. Panic, crushing. My feet aren't touching the ground. Kids crying. Pressure increases to dangerous levels. This prompts police to let crowd know over hand-held Tannoy that 'the stadium is full! You can't get in'. No one can believe it. The charade is over. The crowd realise they haven't been policed; they've been conned, corralled, herded and contained for the last hour. A surge from the back and now it's confrontational. The police get more vocal and counter-surge with shields, batons, helmets, visors and boots, pushing us back a few metres.
"The police fire a huge cloud of tear gas and panic ensues. Police batter their way forward. Crowd retreats, choking and eyes streaming.
"9.45: We assume the match will not kick off. Surprised to find it has.
"10.00: Some fans regroup and storm staircases to our right. Running skirmishes. Beaten back by police. Tear gas again, kickings. Some fans try to crawl under parked buses. This goes on until about 10.30. We make our way back.''
Paul concludes by asking Platini :
"1) At what time was the stadium declared closed? And by whom?
2) What security arrangements did you have in place, particularly in regard to forged tickets that Uefa had been warned about weeks in advance?
3) Why are corporate 'partners' allowed to sell tickets at hugely inflated rates to fans?'
Finally, if you want a solution to this perennial problem the answer (apart from security that actually works) is easy: license clubs to show the match live on screens at their home stadium when the live venue is sold out.''
Paul Gregory states his case very well, and although you suspect he won't get anywhere with his case, you do hope he is ultimately successful.
If he does succeed, Platini can expect a flood of compensation letters heading his way.
Paul has since written to UEFA president Michel Platini seeking compensation. His letter makes interesting reading :
"I would like this to be reimbursed by Uefa. It's the least you can do for putting our lives at risk. If this is not forthcoming we intend to take action against Uefa through the British judicial system, and through the European Courts if necessary. It was only through good luck that Uefa avoided deaths.
"As a former shareholder in Liverpool FC I am the recipient of three €140 tickets for the Champions League final. All are still unused as we were refused entry into the stadium. I was herded, tear-gassed, kicked and baton-charged by riot police outside the stadium for the hour leading up to kick-off and way beyond.
"As the organising body, Uefa has a duty of care towards its legitimate ticket-holders in just the same way as any corporate body has towards its customers. This duty of care extends to having systems in place to deny entry to the stadium to non-ticket holders. Demonstrably these systems were not in place.
"While unsavoury elements of the Liverpool fans must take responsibility for their actions, so must Uefa take responsibility for its shortcomings. Uefa appears to have planned for a genteel corporate networking event. It took its eye off the ball and forgot about a football match between two of Europe's largest and most passionately supported football clubs, despite warnings weeks ahead forged tickets were likely to be in circulation.
"Not only did thousands gain entry to the stadium with amateurish, photo-copied forgeries (some not even bothering to print the reverse side of the ticket!) but, incredibly, some fans simply walked into the stadium with no ticket at all - forged or legitimate! Others waved a stadium map and gained entry. One fan gained entry to the press box with a photo-copied press pass.''
His journal of what happened that night makes interesting reading too :
"I can't even be accused of naivety as this was my sixth European Cup final and I arrived at the stadium an hour and a half before kick-off. Plenty of time to negotiate 'security', I thought.
"8.15pm: Arrived at stadium complex entrance arch. Everyone relaxed. Fans funnelled by railings into several entry points. It became apparent fairly quickly very few people were being let through. It also became apparent this was a holding operation.
"8.45: Crushing begins as fans see little progress. Panic beginning. Children lifted up and crying. Pushing from behind. Police respond by pushing back and forming an impenetrable barrier.
"9.00: I finally make it to the front. Extruded like toothpaste out of a tube into police line; 100m further on, a line of police buses with a bus-sized gap and riot police blocking it. Fans backing up here. It becomes apparent this is a similar holding operation. It looks like one or two are allowed through at a time to give the appearance of a checkpoint. Totally inadequate again. We hold up our tickets, to no avail.
"9.30: No one is getting through now. Police drive a bus in to close gap off completely. Crowd of 2,000-5,000 backing up. Panic, crushing. My feet aren't touching the ground. Kids crying. Pressure increases to dangerous levels. This prompts police to let crowd know over hand-held Tannoy that 'the stadium is full! You can't get in'. No one can believe it. The charade is over. The crowd realise they haven't been policed; they've been conned, corralled, herded and contained for the last hour. A surge from the back and now it's confrontational. The police get more vocal and counter-surge with shields, batons, helmets, visors and boots, pushing us back a few metres.
"The police fire a huge cloud of tear gas and panic ensues. Police batter their way forward. Crowd retreats, choking and eyes streaming.
"9.45: We assume the match will not kick off. Surprised to find it has.
"10.00: Some fans regroup and storm staircases to our right. Running skirmishes. Beaten back by police. Tear gas again, kickings. Some fans try to crawl under parked buses. This goes on until about 10.30. We make our way back.''
Paul concludes by asking Platini :
"1) At what time was the stadium declared closed? And by whom?
2) What security arrangements did you have in place, particularly in regard to forged tickets that Uefa had been warned about weeks in advance?
3) Why are corporate 'partners' allowed to sell tickets at hugely inflated rates to fans?'
Finally, if you want a solution to this perennial problem the answer (apart from security that actually works) is easy: license clubs to show the match live on screens at their home stadium when the live venue is sold out.''
Paul Gregory states his case very well, and although you suspect he won't get anywhere with his case, you do hope he is ultimately successful.
If he does succeed, Platini can expect a flood of compensation letters heading his way.
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
The Host With The Most: Euro 2012
One week from today in Cardiff, UEFA's executive committee will announce the venue for the 2012 European Championships. Three bids for the hosting rights are on the table: one is from Italy while the other two are joint bids - one from Poland and Ukraine, the other from Croatia and Hungary.
Italy are the favourites to win having secured the most votes in the previous round of UEFA's selection process. It was after the first round of voting that the bids from Greece and Turkey were rejected to leave the final three, but what is it that makes Italy the hosts elect out of those that remain?
Well to begin, Italy are the most experienced at organising major football events. They were the host country when the second World Cup Finals were held in 1934, and again in 1990. They've also held the European Championship Finals back in 1968 and 1980, so the organisational aspect to a venture such as this is one that Italy can comfortably deal with.
The other two pairings have no such experience, with the exception of Croatia who, as part of Yugoslavia, hosted one of the European Championship semi-finals in 1976.
Then there's the stadia. Italy have put forward eight stadia with a further four held in reserve should UEFA decide to expand the Finals to 24 teams from the current 16 (as is being suggested by various associations).
The stadia selected by the Italians are essentially the same as those used for the 1990 World Cup. Florence, Bari, Rome, Milan, Udine, Verona, Cagliari, Bologna and Genoa would undergo refurbishment while three new arenas would be built in Palermo, Naples and Turin.
The Polish and Ukrainian bid will focus on ten stadia - six in Poland, four in Ukraine - but seven of them are brand new venues and building work is due to be completed between 2007 and 2010. The average capacity of all ten stadia will be somewhere in the region of around 46,000 (compared to 52,000 for the Italian sites).
Like the other two contenders, Hungary and Croatia are also using a mixture of new and renovated stadia but capacity details are somewhat sketchy. What is known is that the successful bid would see the opening match played at Zagreb's Maksimir Stadium and the Final played in Budapest.
So the stadia side is all much of a muchness (although admittedly the Italians have the least work to do to reach the required standards. What of the other factors like transportation links and nearby accommodation for all the travelling supporters? Here's where the joint bids slip a little.
Italy seemingly have little to worry about. Only last year they made a wonderful job of looking after spectators from all over the world when the Winter Olympics took place in Turin. Go back to 1990 again, and you'll see evidence of another perfectly executed competition when the World Cup rolled into town. Transport links were excellent and hotel venues were plentiful in both cases.
Sadly the UEFA delegation weren't so impressed on their trip to Poland and Ukraine. They openly complained about the quality of the road between two of the venues, Gdansk and Lviv, while in Hungary and Croatia the lack of decent accommodation was a slight concern. That said, venues like Budapest and Zagreb have already benefited as profitable tourist destinations and a prosperous economy should ensure there are funds available to spend on any required improvements.
So do the two outsider bids stand any chance at all of hosting such a big event? Well the Hungarians and Croatians seem to think so. They feel they deserve the chance to host Euro 2012 because Italy have hosted the big tournaments so often before. They say that while Croatian football is currently riding high, Hungarian football is in need of a boost. Add to that the fact that Hungary have been all but overlooked since they were one of the best teams in the world in the 1950's, it's not hard to see why the slogan 'Give us the chance' is so prominent in their campaign.
The Ukraine and Poland can point even more towards a dire need to develop the game in their respective countries. They also suggest that a big competition such as the European Championships rarely finds itself so far east in Europe which in itself makes for a compelling argument.
The pair also proudly boast their organisation of various big recent sporting events, namely the Ski Jumping World Cup, the 2001 Volleyball World League Final and a callisthenics championship. Perhaps not much of a boast on reflection, then...
So is it just a formality for the Italian campaign team to turn up in Cardiff next week and be given the hosting rights? Perhaps not. There are some notable weaknesses which could prove to be a metaphoric banana skin as UEFA surveys the available options.
Last year, Italian football was left reeling after a match-fixing scandal that resulted in Juventus being relegated to Serie B and Lazio being withdrawn from this season's UEFA Cup. In February this year, a police officer was killed after the match between Catania and Palermo as violence between opposing spectators escalated to new levels.
And yet even those factors may not derail the Italian campaign. They have the pedigree, the experience, the infrastructure and the organisational skills to win the big prize, but will UEFA rule with their hearts rather than their heads in making their decision? If they're to acknowledge the fact that its group of nations stretches east beyond the German-Italian frontier, surely now would be the best time to give one of the joint bids a chance.
Italy are the favourites to win having secured the most votes in the previous round of UEFA's selection process. It was after the first round of voting that the bids from Greece and Turkey were rejected to leave the final three, but what is it that makes Italy the hosts elect out of those that remain?
Well to begin, Italy are the most experienced at organising major football events. They were the host country when the second World Cup Finals were held in 1934, and again in 1990. They've also held the European Championship Finals back in 1968 and 1980, so the organisational aspect to a venture such as this is one that Italy can comfortably deal with.
The other two pairings have no such experience, with the exception of Croatia who, as part of Yugoslavia, hosted one of the European Championship semi-finals in 1976.
Then there's the stadia. Italy have put forward eight stadia with a further four held in reserve should UEFA decide to expand the Finals to 24 teams from the current 16 (as is being suggested by various associations).
The stadia selected by the Italians are essentially the same as those used for the 1990 World Cup. Florence, Bari, Rome, Milan, Udine, Verona, Cagliari, Bologna and Genoa would undergo refurbishment while three new arenas would be built in Palermo, Naples and Turin.
The Polish and Ukrainian bid will focus on ten stadia - six in Poland, four in Ukraine - but seven of them are brand new venues and building work is due to be completed between 2007 and 2010. The average capacity of all ten stadia will be somewhere in the region of around 46,000 (compared to 52,000 for the Italian sites).
Like the other two contenders, Hungary and Croatia are also using a mixture of new and renovated stadia but capacity details are somewhat sketchy. What is known is that the successful bid would see the opening match played at Zagreb's Maksimir Stadium and the Final played in Budapest.
So the stadia side is all much of a muchness (although admittedly the Italians have the least work to do to reach the required standards. What of the other factors like transportation links and nearby accommodation for all the travelling supporters? Here's where the joint bids slip a little.
Italy seemingly have little to worry about. Only last year they made a wonderful job of looking after spectators from all over the world when the Winter Olympics took place in Turin. Go back to 1990 again, and you'll see evidence of another perfectly executed competition when the World Cup rolled into town. Transport links were excellent and hotel venues were plentiful in both cases.
Sadly the UEFA delegation weren't so impressed on their trip to Poland and Ukraine. They openly complained about the quality of the road between two of the venues, Gdansk and Lviv, while in Hungary and Croatia the lack of decent accommodation was a slight concern. That said, venues like Budapest and Zagreb have already benefited as profitable tourist destinations and a prosperous economy should ensure there are funds available to spend on any required improvements.
So do the two outsider bids stand any chance at all of hosting such a big event? Well the Hungarians and Croatians seem to think so. They feel they deserve the chance to host Euro 2012 because Italy have hosted the big tournaments so often before. They say that while Croatian football is currently riding high, Hungarian football is in need of a boost. Add to that the fact that Hungary have been all but overlooked since they were one of the best teams in the world in the 1950's, it's not hard to see why the slogan 'Give us the chance' is so prominent in their campaign.
The Ukraine and Poland can point even more towards a dire need to develop the game in their respective countries. They also suggest that a big competition such as the European Championships rarely finds itself so far east in Europe which in itself makes for a compelling argument.
The pair also proudly boast their organisation of various big recent sporting events, namely the Ski Jumping World Cup, the 2001 Volleyball World League Final and a callisthenics championship. Perhaps not much of a boast on reflection, then...
So is it just a formality for the Italian campaign team to turn up in Cardiff next week and be given the hosting rights? Perhaps not. There are some notable weaknesses which could prove to be a metaphoric banana skin as UEFA surveys the available options.
Last year, Italian football was left reeling after a match-fixing scandal that resulted in Juventus being relegated to Serie B and Lazio being withdrawn from this season's UEFA Cup. In February this year, a police officer was killed after the match between Catania and Palermo as violence between opposing spectators escalated to new levels.
And yet even those factors may not derail the Italian campaign. They have the pedigree, the experience, the infrastructure and the organisational skills to win the big prize, but will UEFA rule with their hearts rather than their heads in making their decision? If they're to acknowledge the fact that its group of nations stretches east beyond the German-Italian frontier, surely now would be the best time to give one of the joint bids a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)