Uleb versus Fiba
As most of you probably know I used to be tottaly in favour of Uleb, since I believed Fiba isn't capable of developing a top club competition further.
anyway, I'd be glad if you read it first before voting...
Uleb was trashtalking a lot at the begining (which money they owe to Efes, Pao, Maccabi and all the other ex-Fiba teams clearly shows)... 7 years of their rule in european basketball have passed and what do they got to show?
-The most bothering issue for the teams gathered in Uleb was Fiba not sharing the TV rights income they got for euroleague... yet TV rights still represent almost an insignifiant part of most teams Budget and in case of many teams, I believe they got much more € caring for tv rights by themselves...
Btw. I'd like to hear from more people, how exactly does the Ulebs prices get divided? I could be wrong, but is it that the height of TV rights contributed from that country have a major role in how much a team is going to get?
meaning a champion might get less than all the way from 2nd to 8th placed teams? (I'd really like to hear some opinions on this one, since I barely believed it, but onsidering Uleb's policy that's quite possible)
-Since Uleb can't buy loyalty of their clubs with money, they have to do it by 3 years contract, to keep at least some portion of biggest teams satisfied. Without Uleb having any executive power those few teams can easily use extortion to get what they want for staying loyal to Uleb, which doesn't make me believe things are going to change unless Fiba officially gives Uleb the right to run the best clubs competition. Untill than Uleb is freaking powerless unless "the bigs" agree with them... If I were at Fiba, I wouldn't give it to them, to see how much longer this "cartel organisation" can actually hold up... and that's exactly the way Uleb acts... as a cartel organisation
-Those contracts are unstimulative for all the rest of the teams, in some leagues they don't even have a slight chance of getting to euroleague, causing less interest in national championship for most fans and on the other hand privileged teams fans are getting spoiled by continuous euroleague appearance, less money invested in bball, less ambitions...
-Uleb obviously consideres strenght validation from 1999-2001 as an ideal one and obviously permanent while an expansion as a slight "beauty corection" with chance to fill it up with some non-competitive western teams while sacrifying 2-3 teams to the most obviously unprivileged nations.
They're not giving any chance for that system to change in order to have a more objective picture of national championships strenght and they'll continue to do so further
-While we're at expansion...
I wonder how exactly Lithuanians feel with getting Alba, London a 3year contract and a Belgium team a priority job for Uleb in front of letting 2nd Lithuanian team to euroleague (the exact feeling you get with expansion talks trough europe)... in Slovenia we "currently" don't have such a problem, but honestly I'd be completely pissed off on Lithuanians place...
I won't even start with Russia with 4th Italian and 2nd French team while Russia has at leat 2 more Top16 level teams for the last 3-4 years, now waiting for Uleb generously giving them a 2nd regular representative in euroleague...
...or in case of 32 team euroleague, Serbia that would quality wise easily get at least one more team though "potential" 8 team promoted through qualifcations...
-how come a team from London (of course "bought by Abramovič"- which is a hilarious showcase of how far this forum actually reaches) might even get some consideration... popularising bball? if that's true, you've got some competitive teams in Ucraine that would easily be more competitive through some period than english one... unless we're not even talking about competition, but NBAsystem-like theater, turning a sport into primarily bussiness (which is just the case here)
-another thing where Uleb is completely loosing the sense of the "competition" is where one club gets prefered to F4 to another one...
Ive had it with all that, Uleb is unable to succesfully promote the 2nd biggest club competition in europe, with overall attendance of 1.5 mio people per year, which was their primary concern with Fiba and they are not able to do so either, eventhough they have to act from a nonsportive view protecting some rich leagues which are providing bigger TV incomes, which makes me believe if Uleb would be actually given some sense for sportmanship, euroleague would proove out to be a COMPLETE FINANCIAL DISSASTER!!!
If NLB league manages to gather a bit more than 2 mio € budget (and don't make me search for GNP per capita overall in that region) than there is no excuse for Uleb to gather a "fantastic" 15 mio € for all of their operations...
In 7 years Uleb hardly improved anything and yet I see many things where european club basketball actually deteriated, why continue to stick with Uleb?
Countries where basketball is actually played have little to none benefits, actually are getting sidelined by Uleb, and protected by Fiba by insisting that at least 16 countries should take part in euroleague (which of course for Uleb means glorious bball nations of UK, Belgium of Netherlands in EL).
As idiotic as Fiba might be I prefer them with actually caring for the improvement of basketball game (not bball business), to Uleb that primarily cares to transfer the bball in the hands of bball undeveloped nations...
Euopean basketball divided by Fiba and Uleb again wouldn't be rational, but i'm all for it, i don't trust Uleb anymore...
Jordi, thanks for letting me look like a complete idiot for ever trying to defend your cause.
Last edited by Joško Poljak Fan; 03-29-2007 at 01:31 PM.
Fiba because Uleb doesn't let Lithuania have two teams in EL.
RYTAS
Mūsų vėliavos plazdės,
Šiandien Rytas nugalės.
Pavydėsit mums visi,
Šiandien būsime pirmi.
Although I agree with Matiz in what he says, I must admit I still voted 4 ULEB!Actually I should vote "none, both suck", but I consider FIBA slightly worse.I just think they r 1-2 decades behind judging by the president of FIBA europe.
P.S.ULEB may favour a few teams, but at least in all ULEB organizations the best team usually wins the trophy.FIBA has decided in the past a european champion before the competition had even begun!
Your time is up my time is now,
you can't see me my time is now...
"Basketball is like the church. Many attend it, but few understand it"
If u smell what the G.L. is cookin'...
The Demon of Greek loby is here!
Both totaly suck.
Three Countries. Two Colours. One Religion. Orthodox Brothers.
PRAVOSLAVNA BRACA - ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΑ ΑΔΕΡΦΙΑPravda za Uroša - Justice for Uros
Exactly. Both suck, but Fiba suck more...Originally Posted by T.W.Is.M.
damn
Abramovič screw London Towers, you've got a whole competition to buy instead.
both ULEB and FIBA has it's own shortcomings. I hoped that ULEB in those 7 years will do better to promote basketball. Maybe we need something new
i am not very much concerned about ULEB not giving to Lithuania the second spot. But at least they could abolish contract system.
50/50
I hate contract system. Although my supported team has one with ULEB. The Euroleague organizator is learning too much from NBA "recomended practices". And it has nothing in common with the European basketball.
IMHO, ULEB (or FIBA, whotever, I don't care. But there should be only one of them) should be learning those practices from UEFA and its experience organizing Champions league.
As it is probably clear I voted for "They both suck".
Last edited by sashikas; 03-29-2007 at 03:29 PM.
and yet Uleb's supposed plans for expansion show no intention to do that, while teams promoted/relegated was far better and more just with Fiba...IMHO, ULEB (or FIBA, whotever, I don't care. But there should be only one of them) should be learning those practices from UEFA and its experience organizing Champions league.
It imho will happen, but the fact that Uleb worries more about London and Alba is at least concerning alone...i am not very much concerned about ULEB not giving to Lithuania the second spot.
ULEB policies are not based on principles of sportsmanship and such ideals like honor. I would be rather be seing Zeleznik instead of Alba.....but....big market is always more atractive, such is reality. London ? is really ULEB considering this option or you were just joking ?
Matiz is sadly not joking. Bertomeu said yesterday in Athens that ULEB is thinking about England, Germany, France and Russia when talking about the expansion. I also heard about London, Berlin (Alba) and Paris (Racing) before.ULEB policies are not based on principles of sportsmanship and such ideals like honor. I would be rather be seing Zeleznik instead of Alba.....but....big market is always more atractive, such is reality. London ? is really ULEB considering this option or you were just joking ?
alright, Is there a basketball team in London?
Just as Trif' pointed out... rumour about it is getting louder and louder...ULEB policies are not based on principles of sportsmanship and such ideals like honor. I would be rather be seing Zeleznik instead of Alba.....but....big market is always more atractive, such is reality. London ? is really ULEB considering this option or you were just joking ?
I am well aware of the attractiveness of the "big market", i've almost wrote down an essay on economics, but i'll just shorten it: big is definately not always the best- let alone we're talking about sports.
I'll stay at economics for a while, If Uleb isn't capable of increasing incomes of their competitions other way than expanding to less competitive richer countriess, than it's either something wrong with their management or a model they're using... or both...
another reason why to oppose to such measures. With Uleb's charity to some clubs, they're gaining influence by a shortcut, while also knowing that without uleb they'd be left without their benefits within a short while. Considering the actuall power of Uleb in european basketball that depends purely on the loyalty of 8 strongest euroleague teams (otherwise there is no way they'd negotiate anything with Fiba), any more allies due to Uleb's expansion are welcome... and for what costs? deteriorating the competition- thank you very much...
while Alba isn't the worst thing that could happen to EL, among the "privileged" they're probably the most serious team able to have some significant results... I have nothing against them in euroleague- if qualified through national championship... and considering the state of power in european basketball not as 2nd german team...
the next thing you expect those teams will need a referee support as well to make them "more marketable", like for Roma 3 years ago... no f*cking thanks... they can make westroleague with England, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and Holland if they want, I prefer an honest apperance instead of a "wannabe common euroleague" for promoting teams from countries that have nothing (NOTHING) to do with basketball!?!? I'll actually say it: THANK GOD FOR FIBA!!!!
and hopefully basketball developed countries will come to their senses realising they're getting robbed here
London Towers...alright, Is there a basketball team in London?
They are in Division 3!!!
And I voted "both suck" of course...
Yalla Maccabi!!!
Save English, ban Roy M... No PMs, almost everyone already is in "I hate Lamonica" fan club
Global Warming Is A SCAM(http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/home)! Carbon Dioxide is good 4 U (or to your beloved carrot, peas or pineapple)!http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default...Group/Home.htm
Yes, of coursealright, Is there a basketball team in London?
Bertomeu was saying something about taking the sportive level in account as well when deciding about the teams of the expansion. Well, if they invite a team from London, he's gonna lose the rest of his credibility.
Yeah. As i heard they argue with English basketball association or sth so they are in 3rd division.London Towers...
They are in Division 3!!!
And I voted "both suck" of course...
RYTAS
Mūsų vėliavos plazdės,
Šiandien Rytas nugalės.
Pavydėsit mums visi,
Šiandien būsime pirmi.
ULEB sucks, this is true, but FIBA is that special sort of organization that the word "sucks" would actually be a compliment to. Just remember the last European championships. Croatia - Spain for instance. Need I say more ?
So I vote for ULEB because there is just no alternative.
Just remember the whole European Championship of 1995.A set-up tournament from the beginning.A championship where the champion was determined before the games had started.Sabonis and Marciulionis had another opinion but FIBA didn't care...
Your time is up my time is now,
you can't see me my time is now...
"Basketball is like the church. Many attend it, but few understand it"
If u smell what the G.L. is cookin'...
The Demon of Greek loby is here!
Both suck. Mostly cause of the contracts and the delay of the so necessery expansion. As some of you know i have stated my view of the ideal euroleague in massive posts. The only way to go is a champions league kind of competition and nothing else
bballheadlines.com
-.-- ..- .--. --..-- - .... .. ... .. ... -- --- .-. ... . -.-. --- -.. .
wipe your ass with a duckling today!
Matiz, I agree with you, though if I had to choose among the two I'd also say that FIBA sucks more. Its reputation is dead for a long time now, something that ULEB is only starting to lose these years.
Of course, I can understanf Bartomeu that balancing commerce and sports in generally very commercialised environment (e.g. surviving against the commercial powerhouses, such as NBA or major football championships...) is not easy task at all.
I still believe that it would be good for the health of European basketball if Euroleague makes its clubs to build proper arenas. Of course, we need a fair competition, which is still not the case in EL. 3 year contract system should be abolished.
In the case of Lithuania/Baltics, I think the fairest and economically most feasible way to solve the issue would be to give 1 annual place for the Lithuanian champion and 1 place for the Baltic champion (runner-up in case of the position overlap?) so that EL is also open to the clubs of Latvia and Estonia.
I also think ULEB should implement certain safeguards that would ensure the level gap across the teams is not too great:
- having a mimimum budget requirement is OK, but the budget and salary CEILING could also be introduced (which is a problem given the NBA factor)
- compensation system to the "farm clubs" for raising the players (i.e. percentage from every future contract of the player raised by the club). Thus clubs like Zalgiris, Partizan or Zeleznik get more money to survive in the international competition
- personally, I'd reintroduce the limits on foreigners in teams, but I know that's not possible Bosman-wise.
- in the NBA they also have the draft system as a balancing factor to provide the bottom positioned teams with quality (esp. marketing-wise if you get someone like Lebron to boost your budget and T-shirt sales --> to get better players for the team --> to become championship contender). Not very likely to be implemented in Europe, that's why we need to look for other balancing factors.
Otherwise, the Euroleague will become much more unfair than NBA in ternsm of "free competition". As a result, the overall quality of tournament will suffer and we will still be catching up with NBA for ages.... I don't want to see the European advantages of basketball evaporating. That's what I see happening right now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
