Euroleague 2012/13 teams

[lalchb]

if i counted it right you want 28 teams in EL? i think it should be 24 or 32, not 28

[JRS Bonnet]

Bring back the old days

the euroleague has become a joke...people in favour of this closed nba like system say not enough teams can compete...i say nonsense,,,teams have to participate, in order to reach that level....how the hell can partizan not have an a- license, when lottomatica roma did until they collapsed...an absolute joke.......i say expandeuroleague to 32 teams, all based on performances in national/regional championships...enough of this nonsense....p.s how can italy have less teams than turkey...however much serie a got worse in last 10 years its still better than turkish league

Those are very wise words. There is a need to establish simple and objective criteria for Euroleague participation. By the way, this is the mother of all obscure threads.

[pohani komarac]

Poland, Slovenia, Croatia....the level of those leagues is currently so poor that they should not just have automatic places either. They should have to qualify also, just like teams from Ukraine or Belgium do.

in last 3 seasons croatian clubs finished 2 time better then serbian ones in aba league. croatian league is poor, but at the moment is better then serbian league. croatian clubs had 2bad seasons, besides that cibona was regular in top-16 last decade, on the other side there are some a-licsense clubs that saw top 16 like 2 times maybe in last 10 years....and it was jordi as well who helped destroy competition here

[Olympiacos]

in last 3 seasons croatian clubs finished 2 time better then serbian ones in aba league. croatian league is poor, but at the moment is better then serbian league. croatian clubs had 2bad seasons, besides that cibona was regular in top-16 last decade, on the other side there are some a-licsense clubs that saw top 16 like 2 times maybe in last 10 years....and it was jordi as well who helped destroy competition here

I know that, but Partizan is said to get a contract. So naturally that means Serbia would have a team already. The same with Israel, since Maccabi has a contract. I just singled out those leagues because they are poor and no teams have a contract. Otherwise, Israel and Serbia would be in the same criteria. Basically, the contract system of Euroleague is messing everything up.

Where a team like Malaga is in every year, and better teams from Spain like Valencia or Bilbao struggle to make it. Where a league like Greece lost even a qualifying place for their 3rd team. Where teams like Prokom get a contract for no reason that even makes sense, while some other good teams will be left out, etc.

The only way for Euroleague to be fair and still do this stuff, would be to increase the number of teams in the group stage. But the Euroleague refuses to do that.

And yes, Euroleague's "system" is ruining teams like AEK, Bologna, etc.

[pohani komarac]

The only way for Euroleague to be fair and still do this stuff, would be to increase the number of teams in the group stage. But the Euroleague refuses to do that.

only way to be fair competition is to drop this bull shit a, b, znj licsense crap and make clear rules to qualfy for euroleauge based ONLY ON RESULTS--------------a the moment i agree, croatian club basketball is total bullshit (tough cedevita is only hope for us ) and i would't say a word if we lose spot in EL becuse of clear creteria based only on fair result on court...........but all this crap shit about marketing, big market and so on is only destruction for basketball....it's hard to make it when from start jordi with his crteria gives "wind in back" to some clubs

[Joško Poljak Fan]

Jordi Bertomeu helped making the Croatian league poorer than it should be and is now using his own results to take away an euroleague place from them. Give an A licence to one historic team, keeping them in even if they suck to the extent all others, including a 3 times (edit: consecutive) EL champion, lose hope to ever get to EL and obviously can't grow back in their huge bball shoes. Hopefully people will realise more contracts and A licences is doing just that. Europe isn't NBA and definately isn't suitable for it's competition model.
In years when Cibona should have lost the euroleague spot, they've been keeping it no matter the poor results and no matter of signs of ambitions from Zadar or Split. It's impossible to tell those "what if" situations, but I dare saying there's a big chance Split and Zadar would fare much better nowadays if they had a chance in euroleague when they deserved it on court.
Apart from that, those are two MAJOR development centers. Basicaly if concluding a top10 list in europe as far as traditional youth development goes, both cities are in there. Not getting a chance in euroleague when deserved, definately doesn't make any more youngsters from that area to play the sport, more of the opposite. Cibona sucking due to Uleb's protection mostlikely didn't encourage more Zagreb youth to play basketball either - it's a typical lose/lose situation. Who's "at lose" you might add? The fans... (who I believed are the core of the sport)
Split and Zadar f.e. are just a nice showcase of how licences and closed up competition is killing the sport and could eventualy close some of the biggest production centers in europe as well, leading to decrease in talent pool and thus decreased level of european basketball when those same examples get portraited on larger scale through other production areas of europe.
It's basicaly like believing Dimitrios Diamantidis grew up as Panathinaikos fan and started playing basketball because of the greens. Also, do kill Iraklis, Aris, Paok and I am sure High School coach (you need money/clubs for actual pro's) of the next potential "Diama" will definately have enough expertise to make him a Panathinaikos or Olympiakos player (you know why I didnt put AEK here right ) -> poor Pao if that is too become the common youth development scenario...

Bodiroga somehow is turning against this Uleb's model and is critical to Serbian response in this matter, I wonder when other players as well as fans will finaly turn against it and speak out loud.


I've got no excuse for Slovenia here, sadly we more or less sucked through the last decade, due to neverending debts of Olimpija. But at least I am sure we deserve a fair treatment and play in euroleague when we deserve it and not when some Milano or Zurich don't happen to have an A licence, the same treatment I am asking for Belgium, Ukraine, Czech, Poland (as well as Russia) and the rest for the past decade of so. That fair treatment is, let the best 24 (even if i'm actually for 32) teams play - I don't care where any of them is coming from... if Azerbaidjan is to dominate the euroleague basketball with 5 clubs in 2025, so be it as long as they deserve it on court.

The turkish case has prooved me right, qualification tournaments prooved me right, ACB will hopefully soon proove me right... so far I don't remember missing with my "euroleague idiotism" rants, so I am pretty much confident I might be onto something with each single season more, while all I see from Jordi is what is mostlikely a smaller budget of the euroleague that all EL clubs in the 90ies combined, received from TV rights for individual games (!? congratulations Jordi)- I don't think any of the Uleb countries voted for them with THAT in their mind!


Also, I do aknowledge that Adriatic league actually doesn't deserve 3 teams, sad fact. Yet I hear there is a big demand for someone that could justify the way french league does deserve 2 teams ... which is especially hard as... for all those hard core geek's which can't be found anywhere else but here... anyone happens to remember how many times euroleague wasn't even broadcasted in France on a major TV station (meaning that local stations are excluded) in 2000-2010 period? (actualy, being dramatic, just 2 seasons, yet 2 too many) as far as I heard their revenues from TV rights were all but spectacular in other seasons as well...
Sure France is a potentialy huge market, but there's a saying: you can't live from promises... and god knows I sure understand why Uleb won't make all those numbers public

[Olympiacos]

Also, I do aknowledge that Adriatic league actually doesn't deserve 3 teams, sad fact. Yet I hear there is a big demand for someone that could justify the way french league does deserve 2 teams ... which is especially hard as... for all those hard core geek's which can't be found anywhere else but here... anyone happens to remember how many times euroleague wasn't even broadcasted in France on a major TV station (meaning that local stations are excluded) in 2000-2010 period? (actualy, being dramatic, just 2 seasons, yet 2 too many) as far as I heard their revenues from TV rights were all but spectacular in other seasons as well...
Sure France is a potentialy huge market, but there's a saying: you can't live from promises... and god knows I sure understand why Uleb won't make all those numbers public

The TV revenues thing is obviously a big gimmick, to allow them to put the league rankings as they want them. Because every year, it is Greek and Spanish clubs that are getting the highest TV ratings. But, then we always see the Euroleague claim that France and Germany need special treatment, due to that they "get the biggest TV ratings". They are obviously just making this up. If you look at the game ratings, Greece and Spain are dominating it every year, certainly with much higher ratings than France and Germany.

But this is some way they came up with to make an excuse giving special treatment to French teams.

[Billy Bounce]

Hope nobody would mind if I'll recycle old message

Top teams 'with 25 to 40 million euro budget' are the root of the problem , not the solution.

Any system that needs a constant outside inflow of resources ( e.g. rich owners ) is doomed & recent developments just reveals it once again.

Rich owners give some teams uncompetitive advantage over others by draining talent pool from smaller clubs and rendering competitions ( mostly national leagues) completely useless.

There is one thing needed to rescue European basketball: let them live by what they earn. It will solve basically all problems:

1) lower over-blown players salaries
2) switch clubs' mindset from appeasing of the owners, to appeasing of spectators , will attract more fans to the arenas/TV thus giving more income
3) will bring back smaller clubs/national leagues competitiveness: reduced prices will allow smaller clubs to get more or less talented players without risking getting unreal budget. Again it will add to public interest/ to increased income for ALL clubs

[SimonT]

In the case of France you are right.

But as for Germany Euroleague never claimed that they need special treatment because of high TV ratings.

They argue that the German league is rising and teams like Bamberg, Alba and Bayern could be EL-QF candidates in a few years.

Apart of this it is not about TV ratings but about the generated income of TV contracts. And this is the big advantage of the French teams: They make money with TV contracts while many other teams can be happy if they even find a TV broadcaster for their EL games.

[Olympiacos]

Hope nobody would mind if I'll recycle old message

Top teams 'with 25 to 40 million euro budget' are the root of the problem , not the solution.

Any system that needs a constant outside inflow of resources ( e.g. rich owners ) is doomed & recent developments just reveals it once again.

Rich owners give some teams uncompetitive advantage over others by draining talent pool from smaller clubs and rendering competitions ( mostly national leagues) completely useless.

There is one thing needed to rescue European basketball: let them live by what they earn. It will solve basically all problems:

1) lower over-blown players salaries
2) switch clubs' mindset from appeasing of the owners, to appeasing of spectators , will attract more fans to the arenas/TV thus giving more income
3) will bring back smaller clubs/national leagues competitiveness: reduced prices will allow smaller clubs to get more or less talented players without risking getting unreal budget. Again it will add to public interest/ to increased income for ALL clubs

Maybe this was true 3 years ago, but not really now. Since the economic issues, so many teams with the huge budgets have cut them down several times. As far as I know, only two teams in Europe have budgets of 25 million euros or more now. Barca and CSKA. It's true that about 3 years ago there were several teams with such budgets, and even several with even much higher budgets than that, but this has changed totally since the economic crises.

So really, just 2 clubs (CSKA and Barca) cannot steal all the talent and drain the talent pool. It was a problem when you had those teams along with Real, Olympiacos, PAO, Dynamo, Khimky, all with such huge budgets. But now with just one team in that high range budget in Barca, and just one team with the super big budget (CSKA), when before it was four teams with super big budgets (Real, CSKA, PAO, Olympiacos), well it isn't such an issue anymore.

I really don't think that just two teams can drain the talent pool, due to frivolous spending. It was indeed a problem when it was like 7 teams with huge budgets, but I don't think it is now with just 2 teams that are really spending at such levels.

Also, if you force a rule that you can only spend to what you earn, then the Euroleague will become a much worse league. The level of the competition will greatly lower. All the top European players will be in the NBA. Not like it is now, where only a handful of the best European players are in the NBA. They will all be there. And the ones that are slightly below top level, but still very good will even look at playing in China as a better option than the Euroelague.

Making this rule will also do nothing to change the parity issue. If now, it is mainly the big spending clubs that dominate, under a rule that budgets can only be based on income, then you will have the same exact domination by a few clubs. Instead of CSKA, Barca, PAO, Oly it will be Maccabi, Baskonia, Bilbao and so forth.

It will do nothing to fix that problem. You will just sub out one group of teams that dominate for another one. As the teams that meet decent budgets though revenues will then dominate. And overall, you will have greatly lowered the level of the competition overall. Because all the top European players will refuse to play in the Euroleague anymore. So all this rule would do, is take the level of the Euroleague back to what it was 10-15 years ago.

[Joško Poljak Fan]

The TV revenues thing is obviously a big gimmick, to allow them to put the league rankings as they want them. Because every year, it is Greek and Spanish clubs that are getting the highest TV ratings. But, then we always see the Euroleague claim that France and Germany need special treatment, due to that they "get the biggest TV ratings". They are obviously just making this up. If you look at the game ratings, Greece and Spain are dominating it every year, certainly with much higher ratings than France and Germany.

But this is some way they came up with to make an excuse giving special treatment to French teams.

I know a producer of a network that broadcasted euroleague a while ago, he never wanted to say absolutely anything about the numbers, but could talk more freely about the negotiation process. As a normal thing, those tv rights numbers are always a matter of negotiations and it's obvious how things go from there. A season or two without any achieved revenue for the seller of tv rights can hunt euroleague for a longer period when trying to negotiate some fair price. Just as the broadcast rights aren't realistic to drop by 50% within a season, they don't rise spectaculary either. That said, french TV rating revenues must've been despicable all decade along. Things might've changed now when Asvel and Pau lost their "A licences", but I doubt that was drasticaly.

I don't have any direct sources, but I do remember reading somewhere Olimpija got something like half a million $ somewhere in late 90ies, when tv-rights were under fiba discussed individualy for each match. (with $ vs. marginal € rate in favour of $). The club was in much better shape back than, yet no need to say Maccabi, Pao, Real and such were able to get much more than that. I think some Greek club was above 3 millions $ in that perspective (could be revenues for euroleague + national championship though), but nevertheless if Olimpija was only average in the tv income regard, that'd still mean all euroleague clubs would earn at least 12 million of $ from Fiba's euroleague back than, while in reality they probably earned 20 or more.
They revolted vs. Fiba as it was supposed to be too conservative and uninterested in generating incomes and Uleb would increase those TV rights money, improve marketing and the position of europe's basketball top competition... and after 12 years, we've come to (or we're still there, a matter of perspective) a point when a champion get's less money from winning the euroleague than most average contenders did 12 years ago just by participating (when inflated properly), while the top clubs budgets basicaly tripled in the same period. I wouldn't dare saying that's what any of the rebel clubs from 12 years ago really wanted. It would be a good time for a different marketing aproach as well as a new leadership in Uleb's front office.

I'd really love to see some numbers, as I believe I could easily make a solid case on their marketing approach misconceptions, yet can't find any even after once putting a whole afternoon into it.

[Billy Bounce]

Maybe this was true 3 years ago, but not really now. Since the economic issues, so many teams with the huge budgets have cut them down several times. As far as I know, only two teams in Europe have budgets of 25 million euros or more now. Barca and CSKA. It's true that about 3 years ago there were several teams with such budgets, and even several with even much higher budgets than that, but this has changed totally since the economic crises.

Nothing changed, the only difference is that now over-spenders crown just shifted from Spanish/Greek clubs to Eastern (Russian/Turkish) direction.

I really don't think that just two teams can drain the talent pool, due to frivolous spending. It was indeed a problem when it was like 7 teams with huge budgets, but I don't think it is now with just 2 teams that are really spending at such levels.

It's not only about draining ( and wasting ) talents, it's about driving players prices up for ALL clubs , leading to the economic situation that clubs couldn't survive without taking huge bank loans

Also, if you force a rule that you can only spend to what you earn, then the Euroleague will become a much worse league. The level of the competition will greatly lower. All the top European players will be in the NBA. Not like it is now, where only a handful of the best European players are in the NBA. They will all be there. And the ones that are slightly below top level, but still very good will even look at playing in China as a better option than the Euroelague.

It's a myth. Right now Euroleague cannot compete with NBA salaries, but you don't see Euro stars rushing to play overseas. There are a lot of other considerations ( role in a team, schedule ,family ), so if some player is driven only by money he will leave anyways.

Making this rule will also do nothing to change the parity issue. If now, it is mainly the big spending clubs that dominate, under a rule that budgets can only be based on income, then you will have the same exact domination by a few clubs. Instead of CSKA, Barca, PAO, Oly it will be Maccabi, Baskonia, Bilbao and so forth.

It will do nothing to fix that problem. You will just sub out one group of teams that dominate for another one. As the teams that meet decent budgets though revenues will then dominate. And overall, you will have greatly lowered the level of the competition overall. Because all the top European players will refuse to play in the Euroleague anymore. So all this rule would do, is take the level of the Euroleague back to what it was 10-15 years ago.

Income based system is auto regulated : once income rich club will "dominate" the league ( winning by 20+ every game) it become unattractive for fans. As a result fans will buy less tickets, watch less games on TV : its income will shrink.

Moreover big part of clubs TV contracts money goes to EL - income-rich clubs generate big money for the league who can distribute this money to support poor clubs ( like UEFA giving money to clubs playing in Champions )

[tigermatt]

That's what written in the link Mindozas posted:

The ECA Shareholders Executive Board may propose the following to the General Assembly for the substitution of the A Licence team:

• Substitution by highest-ranked club without an A Licence. In all cases, the new club must fulfil all other requirements for obtaining an A Licence as established in the licensing rules;
• Substitution of the place by a B Licence, whether temporarily or definitively;
• Substitution of the place by a wild card, which will be granted to the club that the General Assembly considers appropriate at its own discretion and for the period that it deems necessary.

Highest-ranked clubs without an A Licence ( based on sport results only) : Valencia - 105 pts , Unics - 90 pts, Khimki, Partizan ...

Highest Italian club ( if EL reserves Rome spot for Italy ) is ... surprise here - Benneton ( 73 pts) , Milano ( 53 pts )

EL General Assembly meetings are close to August, right ? Then some unfortunate club will be forced to make all its transfer moves without knowing if they will play EL or not.

Do you have a link for the classement you're talking about please?

[Mindozas]

Do you have a link for the classement you're talking about please?

http://www.in-the-game.org/?page_id=7895

[Olympiacos]

Nothing changed, the only difference is that now over-spenders crown just shifted from Spanish/Greek clubs to Eastern (Russian/Turkish) direction.



It's not only about draining ( and wasting ) talents, it's about driving players prices up for ALL clubs , leading to the economic situation that clubs couldn't survive without taking huge bank loans



It's a myth. Right now Euroleague cannot compete with NBA salaries, but you don't see Euro stars rushing to play overseas. There are a lot of other considerations ( role in a team, schedule ,family ), so if some player is driven only by money he will leave anyways.



Income based system is auto regulated : once income rich club will "dominate" the league ( winning by 20+ every game) it become unattractive for fans. As a result fans will buy less tickets, watch less games on TV : its income will shrink.

Moreover big part of clubs TV contracts money goes to EL - income-rich clubs generate big money for the league who can distribute this money to support poor clubs ( like UEFA giving money to clubs playing in Champions )

If you make this rule you suggest, that teams can only pay what they earn in amounts, then you will see all good European players leave Europe. Because the salary will be 150,000 euro, instead of 1 million euro. This is not a debatable issue. Europe would be drained totally of all its best players with such a rule.