That's not a fair distinction.
Club friendlies are every bit the opportunity to judge individual player performances and provide chances for rotational players, youth, and reserves looking to prove something, and International friendlies are every bit "warm-up sessions" for more significant tournament qualifying campaigns and tournaments themselves.
edited 30th Jul '16 11:15:50 AM by SeanMurrayI
You don't warm-up during international friendlies. Unlike rugby, football international friendlies do not take place during the seasonal break, it always happens in the middle of club games. Players are warm already. And people actually watch them playing - unlike club friendlies, barely anyone cares about it. It gives an additional incentive.
The significance of an international friendly is relative to each nation and can vary from game-to-game, depending on when or if it's scheduled around more important fixtures.
Germany's and Holland's surprising losses in friendlies against the United States back in May of last year might not of meant much to them, but for Klinsmann and the USMNT, they were most certainly trials for players ~1 month away from the opening match of a CONCACAF Gold Cup to get prepared as well as give others a chance to push for a spot on the tournament's squad selection.
Even one-two-weeks out from most major international tournaments, participants play a friendly or two in the host nation. Didier Drogba "memorably" broke his arm in one such friendly against Japan before the official start of the 2010 World Cup.
edited 30th Jul '16 4:15:38 PM by SeanMurrayI
Oddball Transfer Story of the Day: FC Barcelona are seeking to trade their third-choice right back, Douglas, for a basketball player.
The original source of the story was published in Spanish
, but the gist of it, as I'm understanding it, is that the majority shareholder of Deportivo Alavés (who just won promotion to La Liga) is also the owner of the Spanish basketball team Saski Baskonia, so Barça want to offload one of their unused soccer players in exchange for a new basketball player for their second-biggest sporting operation, Barcelona Bàsquet
edited 1st Aug '16 2:16:30 PM by SeanMurrayI
Sweatpants at half-mast.
Meanwhile, in Champions League qualifying news, Dundalk have beat BATE Borisov and are at least guaranteed a place in the Europa League group stage, which means it's the first time we'll have an Irish team in an European competition's group stage.
EDIT: Ok, second time. The first time was Shamrock Rovers back in the 2011-12 season of the Europa League (though they suffered 6 defeats, so, Dundalk could still end up being the first Irish team to win a match in the European group stages).
APOEL only needed to win 1-0 against Rosenborg... but they ended up scoring three goals in the 6 minutes of extra time(!). Also, great chant after the first goal.
edited 2nd Aug '16 4:44:40 PM by Quag15
And while the Olympics' women's football has begun today, in the Champions League qualifying, Hapoel Be'er Sheva (Israel) has defeated Olympiakos 1-0.
Yes, the Olympiakos which had won the Greek League with 20-something points of distance. They're gonna fall to the Europa League play-off round. Marco Silva sends his regards.
Oh, and Roberto Martinez has been appointed Belgium manager.
edited 3rd Aug '16 1:18:03 PM by Quag15
All hail the meme.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Sarcasm mode Lukaku and Miralles will be happy with that...
Just the other week, I remember being part of, like, 5% of the entire voting pool who picked Martinez as the "ideal" manager for England in an online poll by one of the English newspapers. Now look where he goes.
In a way, I was hoping England really would have pursued Klinsmann with greater gusto, just for the possibility of signing Martinez ourselves. I know he could've considered it.
edited 3rd Aug '16 4:15:32 PM by SeanMurrayI
Don't know about the men's records, but apparently Canada set the women's record for fastest goal (20 sec) and fastest red card (19 min) in Olympic football today
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/canada-australia-soccer-rio-2016-1.3706044
edited 3rd Aug '16 4:11:09 PM by frosty
I hope somebody invests in an inflatable
◊ crowd
◊ to have on standby, just to see what would happen.
In the NFL, games with low stadium attendance only get pulled from TV broadcast.
edited 4th Aug '16 6:22:27 AM by SeanMurrayI
The 75% rule is fairer. Stadiums usually are built proportionnally to the attendance. The American leagues system tends to screw smaller markets because they sell less than New York, Chicago, Boston or Los Angeles. Less TV means less marketing contracts means you can't afford to pay the salary tax means that even a salary cap doesn't make you equal.
Plus it might incite a price decrease to help fill the seats.
edited 4th Aug '16 7:07:40 AM by Julep
The biggest chunks of television revenue are divided equally amongst all teams and clubs in a given league. Only much smaller portions are set aside as bonuses determined by seasonal performances, enjoying post-season playoffs (in the case of American sports leagues), and winning championships.
Stadium revenue is what makes the difference between various metropolitan markets. That's where clubs and sports franchises go the extra mile to sell a stadium's naming rights and other team sponsorship rights to companies, sell additional advertising space on scoreboards and billboards for the brand of beer and soda they serve at their refreshment stands (if an organizer like FIFA doesn't already have their own such sponsors), and hope to rake in as much as possible from selling anything else to the sports fan (ticket, refreshments, souvenirs, etc.).
Fining La Liga clubs for low attendance (by virtue, lower stadium revenue) would actually hurt smaller markets because that would cut into what TV revenue they could have otherwise expected to receive, and any incentive to reduce stadium prices for the sports fan in hopes of securing guaranteed TV revenue further diminishes maximum stadium revenue.
The only major impact a TV blackout would have is broadcasters not paying for use of a stadium's media facilities, equipment, and personnel (because they aren't there to use them).
edited 4th Aug '16 11:07:08 AM by SeanMurrayI
Except TV revenues aren't necessarily the biggest income source for teams anymore. Case in point. This is what you can attract in a big market. For some reason I doubt the Bucks or the Pelicans will get the same opportunity, even though they suck much less than the Lakers do right now.
Edit: okay, apparently in La Liga there is a new equal split of the TV rights. That's a few months old, before that it was the same as everywhere else but England - big teams get the lion's share, small teams get whatever remains.
Edit 2: It's not an equal split actually.
Half of the money is evenly split. Half of the money will mostly go to Atletico, Barcelona and Real.
edited 4th Aug '16 11:46:17 AM by Julep
And while in the Europa League qualifying, Qäbala defeated Lille 1-0 (2-1 on agg.), in the Olympics, Honduras is winning 2-0 against Algeria. Check out this second goal.
edited 4th Aug '16 11:59:01 AM by Quag15
Everything you're pointing to is exactly what I already laid out and the exact information I was basing everything I said on. As I had said,
- Stadium revenue and money from advertising/sponsorship (especially for European soccer clubs) is more important than TV revenue.
- The "biggest chunks" of TV revenue allocated to teams is evenly distributed. (50% is definitely a far bigger piece of the pie than 25%)
- "Smaller portions" are determined by team performance.
The remaining 25% you quote as "resource generation ability" is the portion I mentioned that broadcasters pay for use of stadium media facilities and related resources. It's paid to stadiums accordingly to how often they're used for sporting events (i.e. Camp Nou hosting more televised matches in more competitions that get broadcast in more media markets around the world is a bigger expense for their media resources than over at RCDE Stadium). It's not determined just by who has the biggest club revenue; although, the same "big" clubs one would expect to get the biggest cut would. Just remember this is mostly compensation to stadia to cover the various costs they incur in granting sports media access to them.
Attendance figures for New Orleans Pelicans home games alone over the past season was over 90% arena capacity for almost every game. Many games, in fact, somehow exceeded 100% capacity, going by the seating figures on Wikipedia's page for the Smoothie King Center. Can't quite say the same about the Bucks, but I'm sure neither is struggling all that much.
Considering the organizational structure of professional sports leagues in America, how franchise teams are centrally controlled by their league itself, and how team owners are also collective shareholders of their leagues, most every team gets to enjoy an even share of the collective advertising revenue, in addition to the streams of revenue from televised games, as most advertising deals are made with the leagues themselves (i.e., how Nike has exclusive rights to produce uniforms and equipment for every team in the NBA and NFL). The single biggest advertisement deal any American sports franchise can make to help their individual finances is getting corporate sponsorship for their home stadium or arena, and MLS clubs get the additional option of finding a sponsor for their own Adidas kit.
America's top professional sports bodies give a lot more support for even their smallest franchises than what small European soccer clubs have to endure while largely being loose, independent companies.
edited 4th Aug '16 1:09:25 PM by SeanMurrayI
I know that comparatively, the American leagues are fairer than the European football ones - but that's because they don't have teams, they have franchises, and no up and down mechanisms. On the other hand, the very reason people care about La Liga and not the French or Portuguese championships is because Barcelona and Real are here. Italy's championship took a dive right when the Juventus got put in second league, and hasn't recovered since then (although the Juventus went down at the time they started to take care as to how much in debt teams could be - not an issue in England or Spain).
And you can't punish the teams by "removing them from primetime TV" - they already aren't there. That's like saying "as a punishment, you won't be able to buy players for more than $50M" to a team that spends $10M every year on average.
Considering the current rules, removing a team from TV would be pointless...since it would still be airing when facing Barcelona/Real (especially since those teams play the Champions League, and putting them in separate games usually give them more rest), and would still not air when facing anyone else.
Olympic results so far:
Iraq 0-0 Denmark. The Iraqi team were quite persistent in their attacks.
Brazil 0-0 South Africa. SA down to 10 men, yet a Brazil with Neymar, Gabriel Jesus and Gabigol didn't manage to score one. The SA GK was great.
Honduras 3-2 Algeria. Some odd goals (including this one), which means our group stage has become very difficult.
Currently going on: Mexico - Germany (0-0 at HT), Portugal - Argentina.
EDIT: Mexico just scored, goal by Oribe Peralta.
edited 4th Aug '16 2:17:47 PM by Quag15
Mexico 2-2 Germany. A match filled with great goals such as the aforementioned Peralta goal (though I didn't watch it).
Portugal 0-0 Argentina at HT. Both teams have mostly their 3rd choice players (due to the clubs not wanting to release the biggest players, so it's quite impressive that Rui Jorge has managed to make our team play relatively well so far.
Caught a bit of Mexico-Germany. Mexico's youth continue to impress me a lot.
I respect what you have to say, and I don't want this to sound personal, but I want it to be clear these are your words you are putting in "quotations". I haven't used that phrase, but the inference to me in the second person comes off as if you're trying to construct a strawman.
To explain a few things, regional TV blackouts, especially when determined by ticket sales and announced the days prior to when a game is to take place, can do two things:
- It gives passionate home support greater incentive to buy tickets and spend money at their local stadium when they can't simply stay in and watch on TV.
- It gives a league and its broadcast partners better options to bring the best selection of matches to actually put on the airwaves increase the TV revenue which everyone collectively reaps from at the end of a season.
That's hardly punishing a club. Maybe some fans get miffed they can't see any of their team in action live and they gotta wait for a post-match highlight reel or a wait a couple hours to see it air in a later time slot, but not that big a deal.
Even in the EPL, not every match gets picked up for television (or aired live) in England because the FA sees a similar rationale. They don't want everyone in local markets staying home to watch every match on TV; they want to have people attending games in person, even checking out their local sides in the lower leagues, so even they subject games to local blackouts, which still carries no impact on worldwide broadcasts where it's far easier outside of England to watch any EPL game one pleases.
It's certainly far more punishing and pointless for leagues and broadcasters to decide to air a game with a low stadium attendance, then hit the home team with a fine for costing them televised commercial revenue. It's not the home team's at fault for which games they chose to broadcast.
edited 4th Aug '16 3:47:12 PM by SeanMurrayI
Portugal 2-0 Argentina
Kudos to Rui Jorge. Basically getting what it amounts to a C or D team and managing to defeat an intimidating (albeit also on a C level) Argentina, while not having a proper LB (Esgaio, who's a CB, took that place), is quite impressive.
Goals by Gonçalo Paciência (Éder-esque goal) and this goal by Pité (who played for any under-XX NT for the first time ever tonight) - unlucky mistake by Rulli, though.
Argentina could have scored a goal near the end, but Tiago Ilori (who plays for Liverpool) stopped it near the line with great presence. I can see him becoming part of the A team.
PORTUGAL CARALHO!
edited 4th Aug '16 4:00:58 PM by Quag15
Except they seldom air games with low attendance, because bigger teams always get prioritized, and they are less likely to get a low attendance than the smaller ones. And if a team can't fill it's stadium, cutting the TV broadcast of a game against an equally anonymous team is not going to bring people to the stadium. People who are rich enough to go to the stadium to enjoy their team, go to the stadium to enjoy their team, they are not going to leave the pub/their couch and go to the stadium on a whim. They are more likely to just watch another game.
From an educational point of view, if that was a teacher/student relationship, it would work. But you don't force people to the stadium by cutting TV. Not with the current prices of tickets. And even less if you expect people to spend money on top of the ticket. We were talking about Spain here. Spain, especially outside of Catalonia, is not rich right now. You can't blackmail people to go to the stadium by cutting TV.
If you want more people in the stadiums, then the solution is to lower the ticket prices. To give that incentive, or at least to force the teams to optimize their budget, then a direct fine is more likely to have a significant consequence than cutting TV. And if you advocate cutting TV with possible consequences on the shore at the end of the year, it boils down to a fine.
Alternatively, you bring people to the stadium by playing an entertaining game. Cutting TV isn't going to encourage a coach to try audacious tactics, on the contrary - if only the highlights of the game are broadcasted, might as well turtle and be as pragmatic as possible. No need for show.
And punishing a team also punishes the adversary. It gives fewer options to the networks, since they have one less game in their panel, and it might deny them to show an entertaining away team.
edited 4th Aug '16 4:59:49 PM by Julep
How much are low-table La Liga clubs charging for tickets, anyway?
I can't argue that lowering the prices of tickets and concessions couldn't help bring more people to games at a stadium, but if a club's local market isn't encouraged at all to support their team in person when they can't watch them on TV and they'd rather just stay home and watch a different game, then it would raise some fair questions regarding the health of that club's local fanbase. Do they care about having a team in La Liga in their backyard? Is their seasonal performance so bad so early that their games that that inconsequential?
The crap form his team is in that turned a local sports market against him sure might.
Regional TV blackouts (in the US, anyway) only affect the metropolitan and suburban communities within a few dozen miles surrounding the stadium. Fans of an away team on the other side of a country can potentially still catch the game on TV, if it's picked up by an affiliated network local to them.
edited 4th Aug '16 5:55:00 PM by SeanMurrayI
Quag's overview of men's football at the Olympics ends for tonight.
Sweden 2-2 Colombia. Didn't watch this one.
Fiji 0-8 South Korea. Didn't watch this one, but I've followed the commentary. The Fijian GK managed to be fairly good (especially in the 1st half), but the South Korean power was too much. three goals in 2 minutes (62' and 63') and a Hyun-jun Suk (Porto, currently loaned at Trabzonspor) brace later on sealed most of the deal.
Nigeria 5-4 Japan. It was worth it remaining awoken for this one. Intense attack by both sides (with Nigeria's physical prowess and Japan's technical skills), a hat-trick by Etebo (who plays for Feirense, who have just been promoted to the Portuguese Primeira Liga, btw), and a Japan who never gave up and were unlucky to have the post deny what would have been a great goal. Also, Best Of, Asano (who plays for Arsenal, iirc) has scored one goal. Top match of the tournament so far (even if both sides' defenses were a bit horrible).
And so, that was the first matchday of the men's tournament. 32 goals in 8 matches. Quite good, if you ask me (in spite of the obvious defensive mistakes, due to lack of positional maturity).
edited 4th Aug '16 8:02:08 PM by Quag15
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
I watched the game, too. I specifically wanted to "scout" Asano, and I was fairly happy with what I saw even though he only came on in the second half. He scored Japan's third - converting from a cross from Japan's left-back, one of their best players on the day, from a very difficult position. He also came close to scoring again, but just missed it.
Asano is one of Arsenal's recruits this window. If I'm not mistaken he only cost a million or two, and I'm pretty sure he was bought to be developed into a first-team utility player through the reserves. He's 22, so he'd need to be registered to play for Arsenal this season. I think he's more likely to be loaned out to another club in Europe (maybe England). A Championship club should be happy to have him.
I also really wanted to see how Alex Iwobi would play for Nigeria, but I found out Arsenal had taken him out of Nigeria's squad (which apparently is something you can do with Olympic squads) to have him available for the first games of the season. I don't think Iwobi will be starting any games, but I suppose if he does and maybe scores or assists a goal or two he'll have advanced his career more than he would in the Nigeria squad, even if they win the Olympics.
He's been at Arsenal for ages, advancing through the ranks, and obviously he and the club are both very focused on developing him into a first-team regular for the long-term. He did play a bunch of games towards the end of last season, and he was fairly good - but clearly not the sort of player (yet) that you'd want in your starting line-up for the big games.
As for the game itself, it was very entertaining but the goalkeepers (especially Japan's) and central defenders for both sides were miserable - way below what you'd expect from a national youth team, especially at a level above the under-18. Japan's midfielders were impressive, as were Nigeria's forwards.
Back to Arsenal, there's still time in the transfer window (obviously) and there are conflicting reports/rumours about whether Wenger has funds available. Based on most of the reliable reports from the past few years I'd expect that Arsenal could spend about £100 million more this window before they'd be breaking the bank, to abuse a cliché. Chief Executive Gazidis, though, insists that Arsenal simply can't compete with the highest rates paid by clubs in Europe these days. The charitable interpretation of that is that the likes of Higuain (£75 million) or £35+ million for Sané or N'golo Kante are out of Arsenal's reach, which if fair enough. If he means Arsenal can't drop £35 million on a player they need, though, I'll be worried.
Mertesacker is injured for a few months at least, so Arsenal's centre-back option for the season opener are very slim. Koscielny will still be resting, so Rob Holding might get a very early competitive debut. (He's already played two friendlies, scoring one goal.) It's more likely, however, that the starting centre-backs will be Chambers and Gabriel. That's not a very strong centre of defence, so Arsenal should be looking for a new centre-back. Granted, Debuchy can play there, but to be honest I don't expect him to still be at Arsenal at the end of the transfer window.
Rumours have Arsenal negotiating with Shkodran Mustafi. The sums I've seen are around £15-25 million, and of that's accurate (whichever end of that spectrum we're looking at) I'd say he's worth it. He's still fairly young, already established in the German national team (as a frequently used substitute and sometimes starter at centre-back or right-back).
Arsenal have loaned Wojciech Szczesny to Roma for a second consecutive season. That's a good deal of business for everyone involved, as he'll play most of their games this season and continue to develop, while Roma have also paid Arsenal a fairly significant loan fee (something like £800k) on top of his wages. Arsenal will have Cech as their first-choice goalkeeper, with Ospina as back-up. Martinez and Macey are over 21, so they'd have to be registered to be eligible to play. Perhaps Arsenal will register Martinez and loan out Macey. That'll mean 3 slots in the 25-man squad are taken by goalkeepers. I'd consider having a youth team 'keeper as cover and loaning/selling both of the overage reserves, but we'll see.
For right-back Arsenal have Hector Bellerin (who didn't turn 21 until March, so he can play without registration), Carl Jenkinson, and Mathieu Debuchy. Calum Chambers can also play there, but he's primarily being developed as a centre-back. Chambers is also young enough that he doesn't need to be registered. That means Arsenal will have two slots taken by right-backs, neither of whom are first-choice. That's fair enough, but I do expect that either Jenkinson or Debuchy will leave this summer - there's simply not enough playing time for this many players in one position.
At left-back Arsenal have two very good options: Nacho Monreal and Kieran Gibbs. They might still buy someone like Rodriguez, but this is definitely not a slot where a purchase is strictly necessary. If they do buy a first-team player for this position, I expect that Gibbs or Monreal will be sold. I'd prefer not to do it at this point, what with there being more pressing needs this window. Off the top of my head the only player I can think of for a third option for left-back is Coquelin, who is more used to playing as a defensivel midfielder, but I suppose there must be someone in the youth set-up that can step up. If not, someone under 21 should be brought in for cover - but they'll have to be willing to play mostly in the reserves. 2 slots for left-back.
As I said, Koscielny and Mertesacker are out at least for the first game or two (Mertesacker much longer). Gabriel is fairly good, but not better than Mertesacker. Same with Chambers (who, again, doesn't need to be registered). Holding is probably going to play mostly in the reserves, but he's decent cover. Monreal and Debuchy might deputise here, but I'd prefer Mustafi or someone else who'd be a long-term replacement for Mertesacker. Assuming that Arsenal go through with that transfer, they'll have 4 slots taken up by centre-backs. That's fine.
For the two central/defensive midfielders, Arsenal are well stocked. The likes of Ramsey, Wilshere, Elneny, and even Coquelin will be rotation options, while Cazorla and Xhaka are likely to be the primary choices for these spots. That's 6 registered players for 2 spots, which is OK because some of them can also play in the flanks. Krystian Bielik is under 21, so he can play but I doubt he'll be used much. He's also played a friendly at centre-back, so that's something.
For the flanks, Arsenal have Alexis, Walcott, Campbell, and Oxlade-Chamberlain, as well as some central midfielders who can also play wide (Ramsey and Wilshere). Danny Welbeck is out for the first half of the season. Gnabry, Iwobi, and Reine-Adelaide can play without registration.
There's talk of Riyad Mahrez for about £30 million, and that would be nice but it's not absolutely necessary. The same applied to Julian Draxler, apparently available for a similar fee (and definitely looking to leave Wolfsburg for a club that can offer Champions League football.) If either of those transfers goes through I'd expect Walcott to become primarily a centre-forward. Campbell would probably also play more at centre-forward. That would not be a great solution, because Arsenal need someone who will challenge and surpass Giroud. If they get Mahrez/Draxler and a centre-forward, that would be fine.
Anyway, currently - without any new transfers - Arsenal have 4 registered wide midfielder/forwards (well, 5 if you count Welbeck) and several others (youngsters and converted central midfielders). Let's say that's 5 slots for 2 spots.
Arsenal have the inadequate Giroud as their primary centre-forward, although he'll rest for a game or two after the Euros. I've already counted Walcott, Welbeck, and Campbell as wingers, so Giroud is actually the only registered centre-forward in this list. Akpom doesn't need to be registered. Asano does, but I assume he'll be loaned out.
That's 23 registered players - again, if Asano is loaned out and Arsenal bring in a central midfielder. That leaves 2 spots open for new first-team players. I would fill those slots with a centre-forward (Lacazette is being linked for about £40 million, which would be too much but just about acceptable in this crazy window) and one of Mahrez and Draxler. I suspect that Draxler would be more available, so I'd prioritise him.
If Arsenal can get Lacazette and Draxler for about £70-80 million (on top of the £35 million spent on Xhaka) and Mustafi for about £20 million, I'd consider this a very successful and in many ways quite exceptional window for Arsenal. Szczesny's loan has freed up some of the transfer/wage budget, and the loan/sale of Martinez would add to that. One of Gnabry, Reine-Adelaide, and Iwobi might also be loaned. Debuchy will probably be sold, and Asano is likely to go on loan, as well. All of these departures, together with those of Rosicky, Arteta, and Flamini, will combine to free up yet more of that budget. Asano and Holding only cost about £5 million total, anyway, which is pocket change at this level.
Let's say Arsenal spend about £120 million this summer. That would be kind of crazy, and definitely not something I'd want them to repeat in the near future - it's not sustainable at all - but since Arsenal could do it and they have deficiencies in the squad, I wish they'll do all of this, just this once. They won't break FFP or anything.
It's probably more likely, though, that they'll only get one of these players - hopefully Lacazette or another good centre-forward - and pass on the others. After all, the club will only invest enough to stay in the top-4; they don't care about anything above that. You have to run to stay still, but currently Arsenal are managing that with a fairly comfortable, jogging pace, and they don't want to sprint at all, even when the finish line is in sight.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
International friendlies count when it comes to number of selections/goals, and offer a chance for players to get a starting position for the competitive games, so they matter a lot. Club friendlies are irrelevant, they are basically warm-up sessions.