I love football. I grew up with it.
But I hate the Champions League.
This is not just the spiteful sour grapes of the outsider, standing out in the cold, with my nose wistfully pressed up against the window, watching the bloated, drunken, over-fed hogs self-congratulatorily rolling around in the swill. Though, that's certainly part of it, but not for quite the reason you might expect.
However, let's begin at the beginning. The Champions League. A league of champions, yes? And yet, how many of the teams that are in the tournament are actually champions of anything? At today's date, the international distribution for Champions League qualification for the 2012/13 season is as follows: England, Spain & Germany - 4 teams; Italy, France & Portugal - 3 teams; Russia, Ukraine, Netherlands, Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Belgium, Romania & Scotland - 2 teams; 37 other countries - 1 team.
By my calculations, that gives us a total of 76 teams. Of those, 52 will be champions of their national league. That means that 24 of the competing teams are champions of, well, nothing at all. Almost a third of the teams competing.
More than that, the teams who get more representatives are, by definition, seeded more highly. This means that many of the teams that were actually champions of their league are culled in the early stages of the competition. So by the time the competition reaches the group stages, the proportion of actual champions is inevitably smaller again.
So there you go. Reason number one that I hate the Champions League: it's a total misnomer. In 1999, when Man Utd beat Bayern Munich in an incredible, injury time turnaround, neither team was the reigning champion of their national league. They were both runners-up.
It makes a mockery of the competition. It's no longer about them being champions, as it always was under the European Cup. The prestige is gone. It's not about being the best of the best anymore. It's about being the best of the richest.
Money. That's what it comes down to. The Champions League is a format designed to help the rich clubs get richer and to keep it as exclusive a club as possible. It is no mistake that most of the clubs who repeatedly appear in the latter stages of the competition are those who were qualifying for it when the European Cup was sacrificed at the altar of filthy lucre. Because they got the benefit of the extra cash in those early seasons, which allowed them to outspend the rest and keep themselves at the top of their leagues. The exceptions are those, like Chelsea, who have had a financial benefactor come in and throw money at them.
See?
Money.
Football used to be about sport. It used to be about teams punching above their weight and winning a trophy unexpectedly. My own team, Aberdeen, did this with the Cup Winners Cup in 1983. But the big clubs, and most importantly, the sponsors, didn't want that happening. They want the biggest teams playing each other as often as possible, so as to generate the biggest TV audiences possible. So European competition has been redesigned to benefit the biggest teams. How else can anyone explain the ludicrous situation where the third team in the group stages of the CL gets to drop into the "Europa League". That's nothing but a golden parachute, designed to help those teams who finish third to still make some more money and, thus, continue to outspend their competition.
Last night, Arsenal were on the wrong side of a terrible refereeing decision against Barcelona. It didn't necessarily cost them the game, but it certainly raised questions of whether the "authorities" have teams they prefer to get through to the latter stages to guarantee the biggest crowds and therefore to keep the advertisers happy.
There is no question that they do. The whole of European competition has been designed to make it as difficult as possible for an unfashionable team to succeed.
It's not about sport anymore. It's about revenue.
That's why I hate the Champions League.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Media v Reality
I am agnostic. I mention this, only because I want what I'm about to say to be viewed in the context of that knowledge, as I feel it's important.
Amongst the turmoil and uprising in Egypt, I have come across two stories that make an utter mockery of the supposed religious frictions that I regularly read about, which are the apparent basis for the War on Terror.
Firstly, there was this wonderful story of Egyptian Muslims choosing to risk their own lives to help protect the lives of Coptic Christians threatened by Extremist Muslims. It clearly shows how the difference between Islamist Extremists and Muslims is akin to the difference between the KKK and regular Christians.
Then, there was this image, showing some of the said Coptic Christians protecting praying Muslims during the Egyptian protests, which almost made me cry with happiness and pride in humanity. It also made a mockery of these religious differences, showing that ordinary people respect each other's views, beliefs and rights. It was especially poignant, when put in the context of a video showing peaceful Egyptian protesters being run over by a van in the street.
These things reinforce my belief in humanity. So why haven't I seen and read about these things all over the news? Why are the media obsessed with showing us the negative side of everything? I really feel that they have a resonsibilty to show some more positive stories like this, because to someone relying on mainstream media alone to know what's happening in the world, it is perfectly reasonable to assume the four horsemen will be appearing over the horizon at any moment. And since our own western governments clearly rely on us believeing the end is nigh at any moment to let them away with pushing through whatever legislation suits them (and their backers), it is even more essential that everyone sees that humanity still exists all over the world. That the things that separate us are infinitessimally smaller than the things which bring us together.
In short, I believe that news media have a responsibility to remind us that, despite the disasters, the deaths and the tragedies, there is always hope in the world and there is always good in humanity.
Because they don't, I am eternally grateful for social media like Twitter and Facebook, because it lets real people communicate with each other and show the world what's really happening.
The internet is changing the world, more and more every day. And for the better. Media will either have to adapt to keep up or die, as people seek out more balanced ways to know what is really happening in the world.
IMHO.
Amongst the turmoil and uprising in Egypt, I have come across two stories that make an utter mockery of the supposed religious frictions that I regularly read about, which are the apparent basis for the War on Terror.
Firstly, there was this wonderful story of Egyptian Muslims choosing to risk their own lives to help protect the lives of Coptic Christians threatened by Extremist Muslims. It clearly shows how the difference between Islamist Extremists and Muslims is akin to the difference between the KKK and regular Christians.
Then, there was this image, showing some of the said Coptic Christians protecting praying Muslims during the Egyptian protests, which almost made me cry with happiness and pride in humanity. It also made a mockery of these religious differences, showing that ordinary people respect each other's views, beliefs and rights. It was especially poignant, when put in the context of a video showing peaceful Egyptian protesters being run over by a van in the street.
These things reinforce my belief in humanity. So why haven't I seen and read about these things all over the news? Why are the media obsessed with showing us the negative side of everything? I really feel that they have a resonsibilty to show some more positive stories like this, because to someone relying on mainstream media alone to know what's happening in the world, it is perfectly reasonable to assume the four horsemen will be appearing over the horizon at any moment. And since our own western governments clearly rely on us believeing the end is nigh at any moment to let them away with pushing through whatever legislation suits them (and their backers), it is even more essential that everyone sees that humanity still exists all over the world. That the things that separate us are infinitessimally smaller than the things which bring us together.
In short, I believe that news media have a responsibility to remind us that, despite the disasters, the deaths and the tragedies, there is always hope in the world and there is always good in humanity.
Because they don't, I am eternally grateful for social media like Twitter and Facebook, because it lets real people communicate with each other and show the world what's really happening.
The internet is changing the world, more and more every day. And for the better. Media will either have to adapt to keep up or die, as people seek out more balanced ways to know what is really happening in the world.
IMHO.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tease Me, Tease Me
I'm reading a book. Which, in and of itself, is not worth blogging about. It has over 600 pages and the usual teaser blurb on the back cover, telling me some of the interesting things that are going to happen in it, so as to convince me to buy it. I was going to buy it anyway, because I had picked up a later book by the same author and liked it, so had decided to go and seek out his earlier books, featuring the same character. I still read the blurb, though, just to see what it was going to be about.
Now, I haven't told you what the book is or who the author is, and for good reason. Because if I had, I'd be about to spoil it for you, in the same way that that stupid blurb spoiled it for me. One of the things it told me was that the protagonist's "former partner" turned up murdered, and asked "Why she was trying to contact him when she was killed."
When I began reading,I wondered when they were going to mention this former partner. Then, not far into the book, he was transferred and his "current" partner from the beginning of the book became his former partner. A character who was a significant presence in the story. And then I realised she was going to be the one murdered. Already, I was annoyed. I didn't want to know she was going to die.
But then, she didn't. Well, not for ages, anyway. So, when she discovered something interesting and was trying, unsuccessfully, to get hold of our hero, I realised she was about to be murdered. Again, annoying. Total loss of any suspense which I imagine the author, when he was writing this twist, felt pretty good about. None. Dead. I knew she wouldn't get hold of him and I knew she was going to be killed.
Which, of course, she was. On page 334. Over halfway through the book! Now, I'm all for giving me details of what the setup of a story is, but don't tell me things that are going to happen well into the story. Let me read it!
This doesn't actually win the "too much information" award, though, of books I have read lately. One, which I actually enjoyed very much and am looking forward to the sequel, due out this Spring, told me something major about a character which was revealed as early as ... the final chapter of the book. And it wasn't in the blurb, it was a one line teaser on the front cover!
My point is this. As an aspiring author, I think a lot about story structure, character etc., not only when I'm reading, but also when I'm watching TV and film. I tend to see things coming. I read story cues very well - such that I annoy people I watch things with by telling them what's going to happen. (Well, less so than I used to, since my wife keeps telling me to stop it. :) )
What I love, therefore, is story twists that I don't predict. I absolutely love it when I don't see something coming, or when I don't entirely understand what's happening. I loved LOST, for exactly that reason.
So, I particularly hate it when I know more about a story than I should. When I absolutely know something that is going to happen. It ruins it!
It's long been said that, often, the trailers for films contain all the best bits, which inevitably makes the film a disappointment. And this, I think is a symptom of one thing: Marketing.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for marketing. I want, when I finish my book and, all being well, have it published, to sell lots of books and the more marketing I can get for it, the better. However, there is a line to be struck between teasing a reader with enough information to get them interested and throwing so much of the story at them that their ultimate enjoyment of the book is negatively affected.
Even when people ask me about my own book, I only tell them the set up that occurs in the beginning of the book. My usual answer is: "It's an urban fantasy / comedy about a hermit who discovers his living room carpet is the deciding factor in a bet between God and Satan. Then the carpet is stolen and he has to get it back to save his own life."
Most people look at me very strangely at this point. Which is fine. I didn't set out to write the kind of book that people would respond to with, "Oh, like (Insert name of famous book / film here)." But the point is, there is much more I COULD tell them, to interest them, but I don't want to. It would spoil the story.
A friend, who recently read what I've written to date (just over 75,000 words) gave me a great compliment. She said that the twists and turns made it difficult to be sure who were the goodies and who were the baddies. I was delighted with that. It's exactly what I wanted.
Good stories have to have a bit of mystery. You have to not know what's going to happen, to make you want to keep reading in order to find out. The same applies to films. And I'm not sure that Marketing people understand this.
Tease me, by all means. Make me interested. But don't give me everything on a plate before I've even started on the journey.
I don't want to know.
Now, I haven't told you what the book is or who the author is, and for good reason. Because if I had, I'd be about to spoil it for you, in the same way that that stupid blurb spoiled it for me. One of the things it told me was that the protagonist's "former partner" turned up murdered, and asked "Why she was trying to contact him when she was killed."
When I began reading,I wondered when they were going to mention this former partner. Then, not far into the book, he was transferred and his "current" partner from the beginning of the book became his former partner. A character who was a significant presence in the story. And then I realised she was going to be the one murdered. Already, I was annoyed. I didn't want to know she was going to die.
But then, she didn't. Well, not for ages, anyway. So, when she discovered something interesting and was trying, unsuccessfully, to get hold of our hero, I realised she was about to be murdered. Again, annoying. Total loss of any suspense which I imagine the author, when he was writing this twist, felt pretty good about. None. Dead. I knew she wouldn't get hold of him and I knew she was going to be killed.
Which, of course, she was. On page 334. Over halfway through the book! Now, I'm all for giving me details of what the setup of a story is, but don't tell me things that are going to happen well into the story. Let me read it!
This doesn't actually win the "too much information" award, though, of books I have read lately. One, which I actually enjoyed very much and am looking forward to the sequel, due out this Spring, told me something major about a character which was revealed as early as ... the final chapter of the book. And it wasn't in the blurb, it was a one line teaser on the front cover!
My point is this. As an aspiring author, I think a lot about story structure, character etc., not only when I'm reading, but also when I'm watching TV and film. I tend to see things coming. I read story cues very well - such that I annoy people I watch things with by telling them what's going to happen. (Well, less so than I used to, since my wife keeps telling me to stop it. :) )
What I love, therefore, is story twists that I don't predict. I absolutely love it when I don't see something coming, or when I don't entirely understand what's happening. I loved LOST, for exactly that reason.
So, I particularly hate it when I know more about a story than I should. When I absolutely know something that is going to happen. It ruins it!
It's long been said that, often, the trailers for films contain all the best bits, which inevitably makes the film a disappointment. And this, I think is a symptom of one thing: Marketing.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for marketing. I want, when I finish my book and, all being well, have it published, to sell lots of books and the more marketing I can get for it, the better. However, there is a line to be struck between teasing a reader with enough information to get them interested and throwing so much of the story at them that their ultimate enjoyment of the book is negatively affected.
Even when people ask me about my own book, I only tell them the set up that occurs in the beginning of the book. My usual answer is: "It's an urban fantasy / comedy about a hermit who discovers his living room carpet is the deciding factor in a bet between God and Satan. Then the carpet is stolen and he has to get it back to save his own life."
Most people look at me very strangely at this point. Which is fine. I didn't set out to write the kind of book that people would respond to with, "Oh, like (Insert name of famous book / film here)." But the point is, there is much more I COULD tell them, to interest them, but I don't want to. It would spoil the story.
A friend, who recently read what I've written to date (just over 75,000 words) gave me a great compliment. She said that the twists and turns made it difficult to be sure who were the goodies and who were the baddies. I was delighted with that. It's exactly what I wanted.
Good stories have to have a bit of mystery. You have to not know what's going to happen, to make you want to keep reading in order to find out. The same applies to films. And I'm not sure that Marketing people understand this.
Tease me, by all means. Make me interested. But don't give me everything on a plate before I've even started on the journey.
I don't want to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)