AHC: International Football is between Leagues.

Could International Football had developed in such a manner that it is played primarily between League Teams and not necessarily National Teams? All players currently playing in a particular league would be elegible for a "League Team" that would play in international competitions such as the World Cup.
 

SinghKing

Banned
Could International Football had developed in such a manner that it is played primarily between League Teams and not necessarily National Teams? All players currently playing in a particular league would be elegible for a "League Team" that would play in international competitions such as the World Cup.

You mean like a World Cup style tournament, but with each nation represented by those players which make the team of the year in their highest domestic league? Well, England should perform slightly better at the World Cup ITTL than they do IOTL...
 
Could International Football had developed in such a manner that it is played primarily between League Teams and not necessarily National Teams? All players currently playing in a particular league would be elegible for a "League Team" that would play in international competitions such as the World Cup.

Would definitely make an interesting list to work on.
 
They had Football League v Scottish League games up till the late 1960s. They were used as trials, or B internationals, though, particularly after Ramsay took over as England manager - I don't remember any non-English ever being selested for the Football League.
 

SinghKing

Banned
You mean like a competition of the best teams from each league? A sort of....Champion's League, if you will?

More like a WI where the Champions League, and later the World Club Championship, are created along the same lines as the American All-Stars games.
 
Last edited:
I think this would be a completely worthless experiment because the big leagues with financial clout would just hoover up the best talent as the big clubs do now.

International football is the best measure of how strong and healthy a nation's football really is. Hence Holland has a strong world class team with a population of 16 just million and England with "the strongest league in the world" are a bit of a joke.

It doesn't matter how many billions Man City or Chelsea spend, if the England team struggles to get past Estonia you just have to admit there's a major problem somewhere.
 
I think this would be a completely worthless experiment because the big leagues with financial clout would just hoover up the best talent as the big clubs do now.

International football is the best measure of how strong and healthy a nation's football really is. Hence Holland has a strong world class team with a population of 16 just million and England with "the strongest league in the world" are a bit of a joke.

It doesn't matter how many billions Man City or Chelsea spend, if the England team struggles to get past Estonia you just have to admit there's a major problem somewhere.

To be fair, England's team is world class. They consistently make it out of the group stages and are always in the top 25 out of more than 190 teams. It just isn't world-dominating. And as a country, England has produced its fair share of superstars in recent years (Beckham, Gerrard, Rooney).

Although the fact that England and the US have had virtually identical World Cup results in the 21st century (despite the fact that England has a much more talented squad) has always been very confusing to me.

EDIT: Not to mention that the 2nd and 3rd most profitable soccer leagues are the Bundesliga and La Liga, so having a financially strong league doesn't exactly hurt your national team's chances either.
 
What the hell would be the point? As noted this would lead to the complete dominance of La Liga and the Premier League in 'internationals'. There is absolutely no point to this because it's basically replicating club football in all but name. The one saving grace of international football is that it's not completely about financial resources like club football is.
 
More like a WI where the Champions League, and later the World Club Championship, are created along the same lines as the American All-Stars games.

I think All Star games exist because of the lack of other teams for America to play in their sports. (I know some countries play Baseball/basketball etc, but nit at a level to compete with America.)

Football's popularity probably hinders this idea as does nationalism. Why would you need to arrange these all star inter-league games when national teams allow more to take part and spread the influence of the sport? (A nation can have fantastic players but an awful league, you'd basically just hand the trophy to a european team from England Spain or Germany- which would kill the fun for every other country out there; that will be fun to market.) Why would the English want to be represented by non-Englishmen etc etc.

So really you need to make football as widespread as American sports, so perhaps confine it to England Scotland and Wales. Then without the international interest All Star games could be a thing.

Maybe under these conditions Rugby is more popular. Never a bad thing.
 
I think All Star games exist because of the lack of other teams for America to play in their sports. (I know some countries play Baseball/basketball etc, but nit at a level to compete with America.)

Football's popularity probably hinders this idea as does nationalism. Why would you need to arrange these all star inter-league games when national teams allow more to take part and spread the influence of the sport? (A nation can have fantastic players but an awful league, you'd basically just hand the trophy to a european team from England Spain or Germany- which would kill the fun for every other country out there; that will be fun to market.) Why would the English want to be represented by non-Englishmen etc etc.

So really you need to make football as widespread as American sports, so perhaps confine it to England Scotland and Wales. Then without the international interest All Star games could be a thing.

Maybe under these conditions Rugby is more popular. Never a bad thing.

Since when was parity necessary for marketing? La Liga is basically Barca vs. Madrid year after year, with a rare challenge (like with Atletico last season), but it's very successful.

EDIT: Hah, I spelled parity wrong. Don't blame me, blame the American educational system.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, England's team is world class. They consistently make it out of the group stages and are always in the top 25 out of more than 190 teams. It just isn't world-dominating. And as a country, England has produced its fair share of superstars in recent years (Beckham, Gerrard, Rooney).

Although the fact that England and the US have had virtually identical World Cup results in the 21st century has always been very confusing to me.

In all honesty, I disagree. A world class team would be able to compete against the best. Not necessarily win, but at least raise the pulse. England can't inspite of supposed stars. Also, I would stongly disagree with the suggestion that Rooney is a superstar. He's got a huge pay packet, and he'll score against rubbish, but can you seriously imagine him imposing himself on the Germans or the Dutch? As I've said before, he'll either disappear or lash out.

English international football has been in freefall since 1998 and I blame the idiots at the FA who formed the Premier League and then let it turn into an international franchise with almost nothing to do with English football. If it carries on like this in 20 years there will be no English players in the English top flight.
 
Since when was parody necessary for marketing? La Liga is basically Barca vs. Madrid year after year, with a rare challenge (like with Atletico last season), but it's very successful.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I meant marketing an international competition involving the whole world, where one of three european teams would nearly always win, would be a nightmare. The fun was sarcastic. (Ignore this if the next part is correct)

Or do you mean parity? Because la liga isn't as successful as the EPL because of it's lack of depth. The football played by those two/three teams is consistantly good. Whereas the premier league has 7/8/9 teams who play well, which is why it is more successful- it is more exciting.
 
Since when was parity necessary for marketing? La Liga is basically Barca vs. Madrid year after year, with a rare challenge (like with Atletico last season), but it's very successful.

EDIT: Hah, I spelled parity wrong. Don't blame me, blame the American educational system.

Or do you mean parity? Because la liga isn't as successful as the EPL because of it's lack of depth. The football played by those two/three teams is consistantly good. Whereas the premier league has 7/8/9 teams who play well, which is why it is more successful- it is more exciting.

Haha, nope. If that was the case, english teams would sweep the Europa League, but that's what spanish teams have been doing in the last decade. Whenever a mid-table spanish or english team have met, the spanish team has swept the floor with the english one. The parity in the Premier League is due to mediocrity, not to superiority. The UEFA rankings and the consistent dominance of spanish teams at the Europa League, or the embarrassing defeats of big english teams at the hands of average spanish teams (see: Manchester vs Bilbao 2012) show that there is a huge drop in quality between the english big four and the rest.

Last year Real Betis ended last in La Liga but reached the Europa League quarterfinals and was only eliminated by Sevilla, who would go on to win the title, a feat that I doubt very much could be repeated by Reading or QPR. In fact, of seven spanish teams playing in Europe last season, only Real Sociedad was beaten by a non-spanish team. The alleged Premier League superiority is nothing but smoke and mirrors, as it seems to disappear whenever english and spanish teams meet, regardless of whether those are Real Madrid and Barcelona or not.
 
In all honesty, I disagree. A world class team would be able to compete against the best. Not necessarily win, but at least raise the pulse. England can't inspite of supposed stars. Also, I would stongly disagree with the suggestion that Rooney is a superstar. He's got a huge pay packet, and he'll score against rubbish, but can you seriously imagine him imposing himself on the Germans or the Dutch? As I've said before, he'll either disappear or lash out.

English international football has been in freefall since 1998 and I blame the idiots at the FA who formed the Premier League and then let it turn into an international franchise with almost nothing to do with English football. If it carries on like this in 20 years there will be no English players in the English top flight.
Rooney has performed well in the Premier League and the Champions League, and the clubs that Man United have faced in those competitions (Real, Barca, Bayern, Chelsea, etc.) are on par with most national teams, IMO. Maybe he just sucks in the World Cup? But I'm sure you've watched a lot more of England's international games then I have, so I guess you're better informed as to whether Rooney is the real deal or not.

As for English players in the English top flight, Sterling and Wilshere both look promising, and they're still pretty young. Although I admit I've been paying more attention to the USMNT's development (we're picking off teenagers from Mexico and Germany like crazy, and it's wonderful :D).

I'm not sure what you mean, but I meant marketing an international competition involving the whole world, where one of three european teams would nearly always win, would be a nightmare. The fun was sarcastic. (Ignore this if the next part is correct)

Or do you mean parity? Because la liga isn't as successful as the EPL because of it's lack of depth. The football played by those two/three teams is consistantly good. Whereas the premier league has 7/8/9 teams who play well, which is why it is more successful- it is more exciting.

Yeah, I meant parity. My bad. But didn't the EPL have huge success in the late 90s/early 2000s, when it was basically Arsenal vs. Man United season after season?

Haha, nope. If that was the case, english teams would sweep the Europa League, but that's what spanish teams have been doing in the last decade. Whenever a mid-table spanish or english team have met, the spanish team has swept the floor with the english one. The parity in the Premier League is due to mediocrity, not to superiority. The UEFA rankings and the consistent dominance of spanish teams at the Europa League, or the embarrassing defeats of big english teams at the hands of average spanish teams (see: Manchester vs Bilbao 2012) show that there is a huge drop in quality between the english big four and the rest.

Last year Real Betis ended last in La Liga but reached the Europa League quarterfinals and was only eliminated by Sevilla, who would go on to win the title, a feat that I doubt very much could be repeated by Reading or QPR. In fact, of seven spanish teams playing in Europe last season, only Real Sociedad was beaten by a non-spanish team. The alleged Premier League superiority is nothing but smoke and mirrors, as it seems to disappear whenever english and spanish teams meet, regardless of whether those are Real Madrid and Barcelona or not.

I'm not sure if you understood me. I was saying that La Liga is very successful, despite the fact that there is no competition whatsoever between the top teams and the rest of the league. Also, I seem to remember an English club winning the Champions League a couple of years back...
 
The idea basically has little to no benefits over the Champions League. I suppose one could perhaps make some sort of world-wide CL, but I really don't see the point. The Champions League is already by far the strongest football competition in the world, even if there is somewhat less prestige in winning it than the World Cup.
 
Rooney has performed well in the Premier League and the Champions League, and the clubs that Man United have faced in those competitions (Real, Barca, Bayern, Chelsea, etc.) are on par with most national teams, IMO. Maybe he just sucks in the World Cup? But I'm sure you've watched a lot more of England's international games then I have, so I guess you're better informed as to whether Rooney is the real deal or not.

As for English players in the English top flight, Sterling and Wilshere both look promising, and they're still pretty young. Although I admit I've been paying more attention to the USMNT's development (we're picking off teenagers from Mexico and Germany like crazy, and it's wonderful :D).



Yeah, I meant parity. My bad. But didn't the EPL have huge success in the late 90s/early 2000s, when it was basically Arsenal vs. Man United season after season?



I'm not sure if you understood me. I was saying that La Liga is very successful, despite the fact that there is no competition whatsoever between the top teams and the rest of the league. Also, I seem to remember an English club winning the Champions League a couple of years back...

Rooney tries too hard at the World Cup. He snatches at every chance without composure. In qualifiers he plays a lot better. Look at England's qualifiers for this latest tournament. Easily defeating Switzerland who progressed further than England in the World Cup. I'd say the England team just panic on the big stage, for whatever reason. They do have some talented players, they just seem to collapse a bit too easily.

No worries about the misspelling, just confused me a little. You aren't wrong that the premier league was popular even while being dominated by two teams, but it wasn't as popular as it is now. Or at least it's popularity has exploded since Chelsea and Man City joined in. (Though how much that trend is beneficial to the sport is debatable.

And to just chime in on la liga, it has a high standard of football, it just isn't as open as the EPL. Nobody denies Real Madrid and Barcelona being a draw you'd rather your team didn't get. ( I know I never want to see them drawn against my team- Munich too if I'm being honest.)
 
Last edited:
I think this thought experiment is actually quite interesting if you'd look back from the 1920s on. In the early years, countries like Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia would probably dominate besides England and Scotland. It would only get boring from around 1980 onwards. First, you'd get Italy totally mesmerising the others in the late 1980s and 1990s, then it's a two-tier between Spain and England (with Germany, Italy, France and Russia usually popping up in the semi-finals). Turkey might be a surprise finalist some time in the 2000s.
 
I'm not sure if you understood me. I was saying that La Liga is very successful, despite the fact that there is no competition whatsoever between the top teams and the rest of the league.

That may have been true a couple of years ago, but now Atletico, Valencia and Sevilla are holding their own.

Also, I seem to remember an English club winning the Champions League a couple of years back...

And Porto won in 2004, which says nothing about the strength of the portuguese league. As for consistent performance such as seeing how many teams reach the semifinals of both competitions, La Liga has been consistently superior in the last decade.
 
Haha, nope. If that was the case, english teams would sweep the Europa League, but that's what spanish teams have been doing in the last decade. Whenever a mid-table spanish or english team have met, the spanish team has swept the floor with the english one. The parity in the Premier League is due to mediocrity, not to superiority. The UEFA rankings and the consistent dominance of spanish teams at the Europa League, or the embarrassing defeats of big english teams at the hands of average spanish teams (see: Manchester vs Bilbao 2012) show that there is a huge drop in quality between the english big four and the rest.

Last year Real Betis ended last in La Liga but reached the Europa League quarterfinals and was only eliminated by Sevilla, who would go on to win the title, a feat that I doubt very much could be repeated by Reading or QPR. In fact, of seven spanish teams playing in Europe last season, only Real Sociedad was beaten by a non-spanish team. The alleged Premier League superiority is nothing but smoke and mirrors, as it seems to disappear whenever english and spanish teams meet, regardless of whether those are Real Madrid and Barcelona or not.

Yes, I agree with this totally. by and large spanish teams seem to be a step above other teams on average. sure there are some teams which can beat spanish teams from time to time but they have won the champions league and europa more than others recently. I think if you take Sevilla, Bilbao, Valencia, or a few others and put them into any other league in europe they would be instant title contenders. on that same note though aside from some special cases like Chelsea (the least english team of all, they play to win not to make a statement about "beautiful" football) or maybe Bayern (I wonder if bayern would be as successful without a whole league full of feeder clubs and which bends over to them whenever they get pissy though).

I didn't include Atletico in my list of teams to transfer to another league because i feel they would dominate whichever other league they were in.
 
Top