Will SI ever give attention to continental club growth?

[Renyy]

Been playing the series for 12 or so years now and feels like managing in leagues outside of the big money is getting more and more tedious and less and less rewarding. It feels like we haven't gotten a feature for 15-20+ season saves in forever. All longevity in saves are from domestic club growth, say taking your side from Vanarama to Premier League. Continental club growth, like taking a club from Norway, Iceland or other similar nation to Champions League success, isn't given attention to at all. Here are some of the main issues currently:

• There is no dynamic income. Domestic prize pools start right below its cap and reaches it within just a few years regardless of how successful you are. TV Money doesn't grow at all and lastly sponsorships are simply insulting. It doesn't matter if I against all odds win Champions League with Rosenborg BK 5 years in a row and increase my fanbase and global reach to be one of the biggest clubs in the world, I'll be getting nothing for it. This forces your hand to constantly perform and get CL money, sell players or exploit highly unrealistic loopholes in contracts and man management to keep your players on 8 year contracts and happy. That brings me to the next few points:
• No matter the quality of a player, incoming bids are straight up insulting. I've reported this issue several times this year and it's sad that SI ignores 100s of absolutely ridiculous bids for some of the worlds top players because "Well you've sold these 2 players for a lot". Yes exceptions happen, that doesn't mean I should be forced to decline and micro manage 100 bids in a transfer window 1/50th of what a Premier League side would get, simply because the league I play in has a low reputation. Getting a 2m pound bid for a 23 year old "World class player" while having 100m in club balance just shouldn't be possible. It's completely absurd.
• Wage and transfer budgets determine player demands with no consideration for expenses and potential revenue. First I'm forced to sell players on the cheap to not run at a loss and fear for my job, then players demand more wages because my wage budget has increased and I can't ask my board to reduce it so now I'm stuck in a vicious cycle of constantly being less and less sustainable.
• Club Vision having no consideration for the aforementioned issues and demanding simply unrealistic and unsustainable results. It's just not fun to be pressured to win the Champions League when the most I can get for a player is 5m pounds and I rely on developing 18 year olds and CL money for all my success. I can't even sell the players that are unsustainable anymore as mentioned in the previous point, because Club Vision won't allow for a speed bump in progression. This is as if Ajax would demand a Champions League win every year going forward and sack their manager if they didn't succeed. It's just ridiculous.
• Fixtures being more or less hard coded. I should never ever have to run into a situation where the Champions League final has to be played with grey players because everyone is on national team duty, and that's the biggest competition in the game. For lower leagues this is a yearly problem and some are straight up impossible to play with an added 10-20 games a year from European competition because you run out of match days, the registration rules are based around way fewer games or both.

In short, yes it's possible to take over the world with any club in the game, but the means to get there are reliant on completely unrealistic cheap and exploitative methods because SI completely ignores the obvious longevity issues of managing at top level in these nations. I don't care if it takes me 30 years of ups and downs, I just want it doable without feeling awful half the way there. Outside of the top 6-7 leagues in the world you reach a point in every save where the game hits a hard coded ceiling, and breaking that is just tedious repetition of exploiting poor game mechanics, not good management. 

No one should be able to see the transfer negotiations of every club in the world, see every player generated by the game, have the freedom to give 18 year olds 8 year contracts and bait clubs to bid 1 pound for them so the player won't be mad when declined, but all of these things are necessary and used by players like me because continental club growth doesn't exist. I realize features like dynamic income and fixtures take a long time to develop, but some sign of SI caring about this side of the game and fanbase would be appreciated. It's been a minute. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Renyy

[JordanMilly]

If you have any recommendations for changes or new features for the game, you should post them over at the Feature Request subforum, so they can be spotted and looked at by staff. A number of suggestions have been added to the game over the past couple of years.

https://community.sigames.com/forum/680-football-manager-feature-requests/

[OrientTillIDie]

40 minutes ago, JordanMillward_1 said:

If you have any recommendations for changes or new features for the game, you should post them over at the Feature Request subforum, so they can be spotted and looked at by staff. A number of suggestions have been added to the game over the past couple of years.

https://community.sigames.com/forum/680-football-manager-feature-requests/

I feel like you’ve kind of ignored their point of “I’ve reported this before and nothing has been done”.

I get that they’ve reported it as a bug rather than a request but this is a really big issue that should be addressed.

[JordanMilly]

@OrientTillIDie - I agree, continental club growth should be looked at. I was just pointing them in the direction of where to suggest changes in case they'd done so before in other subforums, but not in the main place where suggested features or changes for future games in the series are taken from.

[Renyy]

I was hoping to create a conversation about an area of the game I feel to be neglected more so than just add to the stack of feature requests. I wasn't sure where SI and people interested in this type of thing frequent most, so I thought general discussion to be the most fitting. I'll happily move it to feature requests if you think it's more efficient. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Renyy

[tmpusr]

I play in Greece and I face most of the problems you mention. In my case, sponsorship growth is fine (I started with about 20M euros and after 8-9 years I get 120M euros which is more than I expected). On the other hand, TV money is way too low (started with 5M euros, now I get 19M euros). Granted, Greek Superleague is nowhere near EPL or La Liga, but my team gets an individual TV deal, so it should be at least 50M or 60M (since Real Madrid is making ~150M, 1/3 of that sounds reasonable if another team becomes the most reputable). Merchandise sales are also a huge pain and I've posted about this repeatedly.
The issue with very low offers is a problem because of the balancing act of finances: I cannot give them the amount of money Real Madrid or PSG would offer them, thus they become unhappy or ask for ridiculous new contracts. As an example, I had a 18 year old wonderkid unhappy and asking to leave because he wanted a new contract after I rejected an offer from Borussia Dortmund for him. He is currently making 1.27M euros per year. His initial request when I tried to renew him was for 15M (!!). Even if we assume that after negotiations he would accept 12M, it's totally unreasonable. He wouldn't get 12M at Borussia Dortmund (in my experience such cases end up getting around 7M) and my team is more reputable than Dortmund. At the same time, another 21-year old asked for 13M in order to renew (he's making 1.23M). This whole thing happened because I sold some players in order to reduce my wages, since they were older and making a lot (and, surprise, were asking for 15M+ in order to renew). In other words, I lowered my wages and now I have to get them all the way back to where they were (and higher) because... I lowered my wages. 

I'm ok with low offers in order to unsettle the player since I use this tactic as well against AI teams (not sure if they happen IRL tbh) but not if it's the reason for my player demands to explode.

Edited May 13, 2020 by tmpusr

[Renyy]

1 hour ago, tmpusr said:

I'm ok with low offers in order to unsettle the player since I use this tactic as well against AI teams (not sure if they happen IRL tbh) but not if it's the reason for my player demands to explode.

I am too, but that's not the issue I'm bringing up here. The game simply doesn't recognize any value in a player unless they are from a select few leagues. To illustrate, here is an offer I just received from Arsenal on a club legend I have no intention to sell (hence high asking price):

Here he is in my squad with his value, world reputation, home reputation and asking price:

Here he is in Marseille on the exact same contract 2 days later after moving him there with the editor:

I'm 15 years into the save, I've established my club as one of Europe's best qualifying for knockouts in Champions League every year the last 5 and is sitting pretty 10 spots higher on Europe's club ranking than Marseille. My financial situation is also way stronger than Marseilles.

If the player desires to leave I'm forced to exploit poor game mechanics because the best I can hope for is 1/10th of his actual realistic value, and replacing him requires at least 5 years of developing some 16 year old because anyone older is too expensive. Not ideal when my board requires me to win Champions League in the next 2 years. Add another 10-20 bids like this per player every transfer window and all fun goes out.

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Renyy

[KrKAlex]

4 hours ago, Renyy said:

Here he is in my squad with his value, world reputation, home reputation and asking price:

Here he is in Marseille on the exact same contract 2 days later after moving him there with the editor:

This! 
At the beginning, I was thinking: Ok if your club is not powerful enough, of course the price would be lower as bigger club could put their reputation in the game and therefore increase the prices. But considering what you added after, it does not make sense anymore. SI needs to fix this indeed.

4 hours ago, Renyy said:

I'm 15 years into the save, I've established my club as one of Europe's best qualifying for knockouts in Champions League every year the last 5 and is sitting pretty 10 spots higher on Europe's club ranking than Marseille. My financial situation is also way stronger than Marseilles.

[Grifty]

4 hours ago, Renyy said:

I am too, but that's not the issue I'm bringing up here. The game simply doesn't recognize any value in a player unless they are from a select few leagues. To illustrate, here is an offer I just received from Arsenal on a club legend I have no intention to sell (hence high asking price):

Here he is in my squad with his value, world reputation, home reputation and asking price:

Here he is in Marseille on the exact same contract 2 days later after moving him there with the editor:

I'm 15 years into the save, I've established my club as one of Europe's best qualifying for knockouts in Champions League every year the last 5 and is sitting pretty 10 spots higher on Europe's club ranking than Marseille. My financial situation is also way stronger than Marseilles.

If the player desires to leave I'm forced to exploit poor game mechanics because the best I can hope for is 1/10th of his actual realistic value, and replacing him requires at least 5 years of developing some 16 year old because anyone older is too expensive. Not ideal when my board requires me to win Champions League in the next 2 years. Add another 10-20 bids like this per player every transfer window and all fun goes out.

 

I haven't done any particular testing on this, however when I was Malmo, I would set my asking price for players who were worth £3m @ £40m-£60m and would receive offers around the value of £3m. However, if I set them at £10m-£12m I would get offers closer to that asking price.

I think the AI see a ridiculously high asking price and would do similar to a human player and ignore it and try and unsettle the player. Its similar to when you see a really good youth player worth £1m, put together a really well thought out fair offer totalling £7m with add-ons and suggest it to them and they come back wanting £123m up front.

[Renyy]

30 minutes ago, Grifty said:

I think the AI see a ridiculously high asking price and would do similar to a human player and ignore it and try and unsettle the player. Its similar to when you see a really good youth player worth £1m, put together a really well thought out fair offer totalling £7m with add-ons and suggest it to them and they come back wanting £123m up front.

It doesn't affect it unfortunately. I've been through enough windows and tried everything available to me enough times to confidently say that, and the hidden stat "Asking price" (which in case you didn't know is where the AI would always accept an offer) as well as sell at promises being so low confirms that. I could provide the same set of screenshots for players without asking price too if you still don't believe me, just a bit tedious so I left it with one example. 

There's more to point to the system being broken too, such as exceptions where players have 40-50m bids from several clubs in one window, then 6 months later back to normal. For instance I had this one player my squad had outgrown, but due to offers being so low I kept him around for 2 years and rarely ever gave him match time. One window out of nowhere several clubs were bidding 20m for a player I couldn't get a bid for of more than 3m for 2 years. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Renyy

[Nacaw]

This won't be the reply you want, but here it is anyway.

You are in a sense working against the game here, because one of the realism goals is to (roughly) maintain status quo between leagues and nations and that's why you are hitting a ceiling. Letting the game world "evolve" at a faster pace like you are suggesting, could have a lot of weird consequences and would need extensive long term testing - all this for a minority of players. That being said, in the current version 15 years isn't enough to see big changes. Getting to the CL knockout rounds isn't enough either. Once you start winning it, things go a lot faster. There are plenty of examples of people playing 30-50 seasons and achieving quite big changes for small nations - so it is possible if you are good enough even if there's an excessive amount of hoops to jump through.

Alternatively, since you are obviously not averse to using the editor, just change things like league rep and sponsorship money to be more in line with your expectations. It will hurry the process along. 

In my opinion, the best solution overall is to embrace these saves for what they are. It shouldn't be possible to create a super club in Norway. Sadly FM kinda leads players into this because it's extremely easy to dominate small leagues.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Nacaw

[Renyy]

2 minutes ago, Nacaw said:

Letting the game world "evolve" at a faster pace like you are suggesting

I'm suggesting the exact opposite. 50 years into the save I'll still only receive a slight increase in sponsorship money, barely any change in kit sales and no increase in domestic TV and Prize pool income. The only significant change of income will be match day as you likely have a new bigger stadium and player sales if your league reputation has increased to where it would make a difference. That's only if league reputation still affects this. So when managers with a little luck and a decent amount of skill can reach this hard coded ceiling within 5 years, then you're looking at decades of fighting game limitations for only a slightly improved game experience. 

Quote

lternatively, since you are obviously not averse to using the editor, just change things like league rep and sponsorship money to be more in line with your expectations. It will hurry the process along. 

That would just give me different symptoms from the same disease and the options are too limited.

Quote

all this for a minority of players.

Even if true, of course players will be more inclined to play something that's well developed over something that's neglected. Fortnite BR was a secondary mode to PVE. Ultimate Team was a joke in the FIFA community for 3 years. Call of Duty used to be single player focused franchise. I don't understand the argument. 

Quote

It shouldn't be possible to create a super club in Norway. 

I'd love to know why. 

[Neil Brock]

Reality is, has there ever been a 'super club' playing in a league considered weaker than others? If you go back in the last thirty years competition and standard was more evenly spread across Europe, hence why teams like Ajax and Red Star could compete at the very top, but even then interest in their leagues was relatively low. Since then it's become more of a monopoly for a certain number of nations. Outside of England, Germany, France, Italy and Spain it's extremely difficult to be considered a 'super club'. The interest in leagues outside of that, even those like Portugal, Russia, Ukraine who have all had clubs regularly competing at Champions League level is comparatively low. 

It would take an extremely long time and consistent over-performance at the European and World stage from a certain league to increase its status. Inflation isn't in game, so why if the league status at a European or World level, would the TV revenue dramatically increase? The user above managing in Greece had his TV money increase by over 300% and sponsorship by 500% which is pretty significant already - which clearly shows there is dynamic income in game - but going above that to compete with figures seen for teams like the very best wouldn't be realistic.  

In your own saves you've said you're getting insulting bids, but have also sold two players for over £100m each, so there is the capacity there to negotiate and get decent money for players, even managing in the 18th most reputable league in the world. There are also options in game to outright reject bids under certain amounts for players if you get fed up with doing so. 

We know there are areas of the game we can make improvements to and the feature requests made on the forums and issues that are raised are constantly reviewed. But some things are designed in such a way for a reason - to keep that semblance of realism in game. If you could make a Norwegian team the most dominant and famous in the world within a decade, that wouldn't be in line with what we've seen in football history, or are liable to see moving forward.

Likewise in some situations which have never ever happened in real life (such as a Norwegian team playing an additional 20 matches a season due to their European exploits) it's difficult to model to real life as there's just no contingency plan for this. Do you think the Norwegian league have plans currently in case one of their teams makes it to the Champions League final?  Internally we run a huge amount of scenarios holidaying and playing through seasons at multiple levels to try and catch every single eventuality, but occasionally there are problems caused by fixture congestion which cause clashes elsewhere. As soon as we're notified we try to make steps to address these. 

Appreciate that we can't please everyone and there will always be areas of contention for some users, but we do listen to the community and will take opinions on board. Your point about the domestic prize money - this is an area which has been mentioned on our feature request forums and is something (along with thousands of other ideas) which we're be considering for future versions. 

Thanks. 

[Nacaw]

Quote

I'm suggesting the exact opposite. 50 years into the save I'll still only receive a slight increase in sponsorship money, barely any change in kit sales and no increase in domestic TV and Prize pool income. The only significant change of income will be match day as you likely have a new bigger stadium and player sales if your league reputation has increased to where it would make a difference. That's only if league reputation still affects this. So when managers with a little luck and a decent amount of skill can reach this hard coded ceiling within 5 years, then you're looking at decades of fighting game limitations for only a slightly improved game experience. 

You list no dynamic income as an issue. This more than suggests you want those things to change more rapid. It's clearly in the game though, even if you think it isn't.

Quote

That would just give me different symptoms from the same disease and the options are too limited.

Not at all - these parameters are directly causing the difference between you and Marseille. Turn the right knobs and you'll see a big difference. These are the things that change over 30-50 years dynamically. 

Quote

Even if true, of course players will be more inclined to play something that's well developed over something that's neglected. Fortnite BR was a secondary mode to PVE. Ultimate Team was a joke in the FIFA community for 3 years. Call of Duty used to be single player focused franchise. I don't understand the argument. 

I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure SI does. Looking at steam achievements, less than 2% of the players have 10 years at a club, and 0.2% have played more than 30 seasons total. Improvements to long term saves will always be something a minority of players will enjoy - revamping training or another aspect of the game will benefit the masses. The argument is that SI should improve things that benefit the most people - meaning big changes to long term saves isn't really a priority. 

Quote

I'd love to know why. 

Neil answered this in much more detail, but basically it's unrealistic. I'd argue it's already too easy to create super clubs in small leagues, and the changes you are suggesting would make it even easier. 

[metallimuse]

10 minutes ago, Nacaw said:

Looking at steam achievements, less than 2% of the players have 10 years at a club, and 0.2% have played more than 30 seasons total

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!?!?!

[Renyy]

5 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

Inflation isn't in game, so why if the league status at a European or World level, would the TV revenue dramatically increase?

Hey Neil, thank you for your time.

The solution to maintain a balanced economy would be to redistribute the money, not introduce more. There are already systems in place that keeps track of and affects the game such as reputation and coefficient tables, that could in theory control the economy.

Quote

The user above managing in Greece had his TV money increase by over 300% and sponsorship by 500% which is pretty significant already - which clearly shows there is dynamic income in game - but going above that to compete with figures seen for teams like the very best wouldn't be realistic.

If there is a hard or soft cap at 300% that still means nothing to clubs starting out at 100 000. If against all odds the 18th and 1st most reputable leagues in game swaps places Norwegian League will still see less than 10 million while Premier League keeps sitting comfortably.

Quote

In your own saves you've said you're getting insulting bids, but have also sold two players for over £100m each

I definitely have not. My record fee in in FM20 is £50m on a real player which doesn't seem to have this issue as much as regens. I must've made a typo or written in NOK if I've said 100m. With that said I do agree there is potential and capacity for big money transfers also in lower reputation league, but I can't for the life of me make any sense of them. They're volatile and seemingly random, making it impossible to budget or make any sort of long term plans around them despite having the best players in the world. Simply asking for some stability here and making valuations more in line with player skill and performances than based on league reputation. 

Quote

If you could make a Norwegian team the most dominant and famous in the world within a decade, that wouldn't be in line with what we've seen in football history, or are liable to see moving forward.

I wanna make it clear that I am not advocating for this or saying continental growth should be faster than it currently is. Difficulty should ideally get tougher. While in real life we'll likely never see the likes of Norway, Iceland or Sweden dominate club football, realistically it can happen, and that's what I'd like to see in FM. Rather than being about knowing the ins and outs of the game and exploiting mechanics such as Youth Intake dates and 8 year contracts which on the opposite end are realistic features that don't actually happen in real life. I want 30+ years of engaging football management, not 10 or in some cases even shorter as it is now.

Quote

Likewise in some situations which have never ever happened in real life (such as a Norwegian team playing an additional 20 matches a season due to their European exploits) it's difficult to model to real life as there's just no contingency plan for this

Yeah I understand that this probably won't happen anytime soon or ever, but a man can dream right.

 

[Renyy]

1 hour ago, Nacaw said:

You list no dynamic income as an issue. It's clearly in the game though, even if you think it isn't.

Can you show me any example of TV or sponsorships money changing to fit the football world in these 50 year saves you're referring to? Because I've had them, and they don't. 

And no the game wouldn't get easier, it would ideally get much more difficult than it is. You're just reading the bullet points in a vacuum, ignoring half my post on balancing them and arguing based on that. That's not what I'm asking for.

If Sports Interactive doesn't see worth in improving longevity of saves based on current player numbers, then I respect that. Just looking for some communication. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Renyy

[Andyprime]

I curious as to how this will effect my save as I'm trying to win the the champions league and in turn make the northern Irish league the best on the world.

It would be ridiculous if they are number one and all the stars wat to or do play there but the prize money and sponsorships or still a few thousand quid

[tmpusr]

First of all, thanks Neil for your post. Let me respond to some of your points though:

11 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Reality is, has there ever been a 'super club' playing in a league considered weaker than others? If you go back in the last thirty years competition and standard was more evenly spread across Europe, hence why teams like Ajax and Red Star could compete at the very top, but even then interest in their leagues was relatively low. Since then it's become more of a monopoly for a certain number of nations. Outside of England, Germany, France, Italy and Spain it's extremely difficult to be considered a 'super club'. The interest in leagues outside of that, even those like Portugal, Russia, Ukraine who have all had clubs regularly competing at Champions League level is comparatively low. 

It would take an extremely long time and consistent over-performance at the European and World stage from a certain league to increase its status. Inflation isn't in game, so why if the league status at a European or World level, would the TV revenue dramatically increase? The user above managing in Greece had his TV money increase by over 300% and sponsorship by 500% which is pretty significant already - which clearly shows there is dynamic income in game - but going above that to compete with figures seen for teams like the very best wouldn't be realistic.

The whole game is not realistic (and imho it shouldn't, otherwise it wouldn't be fun). There is no point in history when every manager in the world became super dumb and a newcomer was the only smart one, but the moment I start my save that's exactly what happens. The truth is, human users are much much smarter than AI managers and this puts us in the position to create "super clubs" within a few years even if in reality it would take decades (or might even be outright impossible).

To put it in a different way, I've been playing the same save (with AEK from Greece) in every version of FM since 06/07. In most versions I would start winning the CL within 3 years (sometimes I could do it even in 2, occasionally it would take me 4+), without using the editor. It's not that hard if you know what to do. Now, if you want to maintain realism I would argue there are 3 main ways all of which have their drawbacks/problems:

• Make the AI smarter: probably the most obvious and correct solution, but definitely the hardest one technically. Even with the huge advances in AI research of the past few years, it's still far from being competitive to human intelligence at least in this context and without requiring a supercomputer.
• Make it harder for the user to create super teams: this would entail making it VERY hard to scout and find wonderkids, VERY hard to buy them in affordable prices and VERY hard to improve the facilities of the club. Imho this would mean kill some of the realism (there is no fundamental reason why a club from a smaller league would not be able to scout and buy wonderkids, Porto used to do it all the time in the 00s) in order to maintain the realism at the top level.
• Make it harder for the user to win: regardless of what team the user assembles and the tactics he/she uses, make it virtually impossible to win enough. Imho that would be the worst solution (and probably one of the few reasons that would make me stop purchasing the game) but it would achieve the realism goal at the result level.

The current status of allowing the user to create super teams, be very successful and then put a financial stranglehold so that he/she spends most of the time in the finances tab trying to figure out how to keep the balance positive when players have ridiculous demands, imho takes a good chunk of the fun out of it. And given that in this case a super club has been created out of the blue, the realism argument imho is weaker: there are no real data points to draw conclusions from. It's equally possible that there would be no increase in money income (not even the dynamic increase already present in the game) or that sponsors, TV broadcasters and fans would go nuts for the new phenomenon and pour money to it.

Thanks!

[Nacaw]

On 13/05/2020 at 13:18, Renyy said:

Can you show me any example of TV or sponsorships money changing to fit the football world in these 50 year saves you're referring to? Because I've had them, and they don't. 

And no the game wouldn't get easier, it would ideally get much more difficult than it is. You're just reading the bullet points in a vacuum, ignoring half my post on balancing them and arguing based on that. That's not what I'm asking for.

If Sports Interactive doesn't see worth in improving longevity of saves based on current player numbers, then I respect that. Just looking for some communication. 

Yes, there's already a good example in this thread. It happens every long long-term save. Maybe (and I've pointed this out before, but you denied wanting it) it doesn't change as fast or as much as you'd like, but these things definitely change over time. That's all dynamic means. You said that wasn't in the game, and that's categorically, without a shadow of a doubt, not true. 

The totality of your points would make the game easier, not a single of your own bullet points in the first post would make it harder. Not sure how that is balancing? In case you didn't know, I'm allowed to pick and choose what I respond to. That's how a forum works. You've done the exact same thing quoting Neil. 

Not agreeing with you is also communication. Your agenda is to make it easier to "take over the world" with any club "outside of the top 6-7 leagues". These are your words. I'm strongly against that, and I see no connection between this and improving longevity of saves. 

[Nacaw]

On 13/05/2020 at 17:54, tmpusr said:

The current status of allowing the user to create super teams, be very successful and then put a financial stranglehold so that he/she spends most of the time in the finances tab trying to figure out how to keep the balance positive when players have ridiculous demands, imho takes a good chunk of the fun out of it. And given that in this case a super club has been created out of the blue, the realism argument imho is weaker: there are no real data points to draw conclusions from. It's equally possible that there would be no increase in money income (not even the dynamic increase already present in the game) or that sponsors, TV broadcasters and fans would go nuts for the new phenomenon and pour money to it.
 

I agree with most things in your post, and I think most people playing this game 10+ seasons would appreciate a harder AI challenge. But I've quoted the last bit because that's actually realistic. There are plenty of examples of good teams being on the verge of becoming the best, where financial and other issues have broken them up. Recent examples would be Ajax and Monaco. The game is giving you this challenge, because that's the challenge any successful "lesser" team would face. It has to be almost impossible to keep such a team together, that's realism. While it's not super realistic for the EPL to remain the #1 league for TV-money forever, there are even less reasons to think that it will change the next 20 years, and even even less chance that a low rep league will suddenly gain a ton of attention & investments. FM operates largely assuming not much changes - for the better of the game and realism. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Nacaw

[tmpusr]

2 hours ago, Nacaw said:

There are plenty of examples of good teams being on the verge of becoming the best, where financial and other issues have broken them up. Recent examples would be Ajax and Monaco.

I beg to differ.
Ajax had 2 runs when they actually became the best team in the world: in the 1970s they won 3 European Cups in a row and in the 1990s they won one UEFA Cup, 1 CL and lost their second final in row on a penalty shootout. The reasons they broke up are (understandably) not reflected in the game:

• In the 70s, Cruyff was by far the best paid player in the Ajax team -almost twice as much as the rest- and he was injury-prone (rumor has it that some of them were fake). His personal doctor advised him not to play on the second leg of the 1973 European Cup quarter final, even though the team doctor had cleared him for the game. Cruyff denied participating which caused turmoil in the team. As a result, when the Ajax players voted for the captain of the '73-'74 season, Keizer was elected which led to Cruyff's request for transfer and subsequent transfer to Barcelona. Without Cruyff, Ajax was not at the same level and soon disintegrated. Therefore, this reason is not related to money, league reputation or anything similar but rather problematic dynamics.
• In the 90s, Ajax was destroyed by the Bosman ruling which suddenly allowed free agency and unlimited EU players in squads. This is related to money, since one would assume that if Ajax had enough money, they might be able to keep their players from leaving. Back in the day however, sponsorships and TV rights were not the most important factor for a team's income as they are today. Teams relied mostly on tickets and that put Ajax in a huge disadvantage since until '96 they were playing in either De Meer (with a capacity of 19000 people) or Olympisch stadium (with a capacity of 22000 people). Comparing this capacity to the capacity of the stadiums of the rest of the top teams in Europe (Bernabeu: 81000, Camp Nou: 99000, Delle Alpi: 69000, San Siro: 76000 etc) explains why Ajax had such a financial disadvantage. Nowadays, things are different: sponsors, marketing/merchandise and TV rights account for the majority of top teams income (along with prize money). There is no fundamental reason why a team from e.g. Netherlands would be able to attract this income if they have a successful run. Maybe they will not get the broadcasting money of EPL, but a significant increase in TV rights is very possible: afaik Ligue 1 broadcasting rights increased by 50% due to the surge of PSG. I would imagine that should PSG sign an individual TV deal, the increase on their income would be much much higher.
• I'm not sure if when you mentioned Ajax you had in mind their recent good run. In this case, we're not talking about a very successful team (compared to the "super clubs" we create in FM): They lost in the final of EL a few years back and in the semis of CL last year. In between they were inconsistent.

Monaco is a different story: they belong to the French League which is one of the top 5 leagues so in the game they should have no problem increasing their income. In reality, Monaco has to deal with PSG that won't allow them to grow. They might be able to manage an upset or two, but in the long run they don't have the capacity to compete with PSG and therefore are forced to be a selling club. A very successful one, but a selling club. Without PSG in the picture, maybe things would be different.

Hope the above make sense :)

[Renyy]

4 hours ago, Nacaw said:

Yes, there's already a good example in this thread. It happens every long long-term save. Maybe (and I've pointed this out before, but you denied wanting it) it doesn't change as fast or as much as you'd like, but these things definitely change over time. That's all dynamic means. You said that wasn't in the game, and that's categorically, without a shadow of a doubt, not true. 

The totality of your points would make the game easier, not a single of your own bullet points in the first post would make it harder. Not sure how that is balancing? In case you didn't know, I'm allowed to pick and choose what I respond to. That's how a forum works. You've done the exact same thing quoting Neil. 

Not agreeing with you is also communication. Your agenda is to make it easier to "take over the world" with any club "outside of the top 6-7 leagues". These are your words. I'm strongly against that, and I see no connection between this and improving longevity of saves. 

There's no such example in this thread. Rest of your post is just pathetic strawmanning and I'm done repeating myself.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Renyy

[yolixeya]

7 hours ago, tmpusr said:

Ajax had 2 runs when they actually became the best team in the world: in the 1970s they won 3 European Cups in a row and in the 1990s they won one UEFA Cup, 1 CL and lost their second final in row on a penalty shootout. The reasons they broke up are (understandably) not reflected in the game:

I don't think  that 70s can be compared to today. Transfer market is so much different and there is much bigger gap between big clubs in top 5 leagues and clubs that are deemed big in other countries the it was back then. It is pretty much impossible in todays football that Red Star or Steaua win CL in my opinion. Nowdays for those teams,  it is considered success if they qualify for the group stages of CL. 

[alanschu14]

On 14/05/2020 at 18:53, tmpusr said:

In the 90s, Ajax was destroyed by the Bosman ruling which suddenly allowed free agency and unlimited EU players in squads. This is related to money, since one would assume that if Ajax had enough money, they might be able to keep their players from leaving. Back in the day however, sponsorships and TV rights were not the most important factor for a team's income as they are today. Teams relied mostly on tickets and that put Ajax in a huge disadvantage since until '96 they were playing in either De Meer (with a capacity of 19000 people) or Olympisch stadium (with a capacity of 22000 people). Comparing this capacity to the capacity of the stadiums of the rest of the top teams in Europe (Bernabeu: 81000, Camp Nou: 99000, Delle Alpi: 69000, San Siro: 76000 etc) explains why Ajax had such a financial disadvantage. Nowadays, things are different: sponsors, marketing/merchandise and TV rights account for the majority of top teams income (along with prize money). There is no fundamental reason why a team from e.g. Netherlands would be able to attract this income if they have a successful run. Maybe they will not get the broadcasting money of EPL, but a significant increase in TV rights is very possible: afaik Ligue 1 broadcasting rights increased by 50% due to the surge of PSG. I would imagine that should PSG sign an individual TV deal, the increase on their income would be much much higher.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that and would actually point to the TV money explosion being the type of thing that actually hinders this and is in large part why a club like Ajax fell away.

Ligue 1's growth has certainly come with the huge influx of dollars pushed in through PSG, but I think it's still important to recognize that it's in one of the biggest and (presumably) richest cities in all of Europe. Compare this to the Red Bull Football clubs, where Salzburg has been the big dog in a small league complete with consistent European showings (top 30 club coefficient even) and their TV money is still less than leagues that don't have nearly as consistent European performances (Norway, Sweden, Poland, Greece, and Romania all have more TV money but poorer performances in Europe). And the RB club in Germany is about to blow past Salzburg in club coefficient because they're in a league that more easily can deal support a team injecting a ton of cash.

I actually agree with you on some level (and the idea of individual TV deals for outliers is interesting), and things like transfer fees that you're running into are still a big problem. IIRC I believe I circumvented this in my Norway game (Skeid) when I experimented with flipping Norway's FA Financial Power up to 20 which seemed to give my players better valuation... and I probably shouldn't need to do that! I was disappointed that my prize and TV money in Norway never really changed even as I eventually won Champions League, though I can understand that it's a complicated assessment because even in that case, I would still expect the traditionally big clubs to still be the biggest money earners than even my Champions League Skeid. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was limited interest in anyone wanting to watch my league games because I was having 30-0 seasons and effectively supplying the entire league with their star players (loans of 18 y/o wonderkids because HGN is so important in Norway) and begging my fellow league teams to start putting in better performances in Europe to get us more entrenched into the top 10 for more Group Stage placements.

[Renyy]

Quote

 actually agree with you on some level (and the idea of individual TV deals for outliers is interesting), and things like transfer fees that you're running into are still a big problem. IIRC I believe I circumvented this in my Norway game (Skeid) when I experimented with flipping Norway's FA Financial Power up to 20 which seemed to give my players better valuation

Do you know what this does exactly? I'm honestly getting more and more confused at these player valuations, as I'm currently the 7th best performing club in Europe, 9th most reputable league and my player values are still not to the level of FC Copenhagen in 32nd and Danish Premier League in 12th, and Danish FA Financial Power is at 5 compared to Norway's 11. Basically everything Denmark is worse than Norway at this point and they're still worth more. Player values just seem more and more hard coded to the established top leagues on game start to me, which makes it hard to stay motivated. 

I don't understand the extremist examples used in defence of this either. Like you, I'm not asking for Skeid to be the biggest money earners in Europe after a CL win, just some recognition and realistic reward for an incredible achievement. When Martin Ødegaard started playing regularly in La Liga Norwegian TV2 immediately went in for the rights to Real Sociedad's games and there's been a lot more eyes on the league in Norway as a result. In 5-10 years assuming he stays with Real Madrid, there will be a huge increase in Real Madrid fan numbers here all from one player and more eyes on the product. That's the power of one talented 21 year old. Now picture 15 different nationalities, all of the top players in the world all playing on the same team and dominating world football and there's just no significant financial increase as a result. Fan base and merch sales should be way up, TV money should come in from all over the world and as a result sponsorships should see a significant increase. The game constantly pushes you to improve past it's own limitation and punishes you as a result. At the very least address these inconsistencies so we're not at the risk of losing decades long saves.

Quote

 supplying the entire league with their star players (loans of 18 y/o wonderkids because HGN is so important in Norway) and begging my fellow league teams to start putting in better performances in Europe to get us more entrenched into the top 10 for more Group Stage placements.

I wish I could do this. AI clubs don't seem to have the same push and drive for improvement as the manager's club does. Even if I pump them full of money and offer them my wonderkids for free they continue to sign players on a free and for sums they would on game start. Most of the time they don't even want what I offer them. Not that another exploit is even remotely what I'm looking for in future games. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Renyy

[tmpusr]

On 15/05/2020 at 01:14, yolixeya said:

I don't think  that 70s can be compared to today. Transfer market is so much different and there is much bigger gap between big clubs in top 5 leagues and clubs that are deemed big in other countries the it was back then. It is pretty much impossible in todays football that Red Star or Steaua win CL in my opinion. Nowdays for those teams,  it is considered success if they qualify for the group stages of CL. 

It is definitely not the same situation and the discrepancy is much larger, I agree. In the last 20 years Porto was the only team from a smaller league to win the CL (it is more common in EL with 7/20 winners playing in smaller leagues). That being said, FM is not reality as I said in my previous posts. It's quite easy for a human user to load his/her team with wonderkids and win the CL a few years later. Therefore imho, what SI should consider is ways to either prevent this (I've outlined some above) or embrace this (i.e. accept that this is an alternate reality and allow the user to create a "super club" from a smaller league and let the rest of the game treat it as such).

 

12 hours ago, alanschu14 said:

I think it's a lot more complicated than that and would actually point to the TV money explosion being the type of thing that actually hinders this and is in large part why a club like Ajax fell away.

Of course it's more complicated than that That being said, the TV money explosion you refer to happened a bit later. For instance, back in '95 less than 20% of the Spanish teams revenue came from broadcasting rights and more than 45% came from stadium tickets (match day and season). This changed radically over the next decade (with TV rights raising to 33% and tickets dropping to 32%, while the absolute figure of TV revenue tripled). In England, EPL was still under their first contract for their TV rights. It was in '98 that they signed their second deal for almost double the money.

12 hours ago, alanschu14 said:

Ligue 1's growth has certainly come with the huge influx of dollars pushed in through PSG, but I think it's still important to recognize that it's in one of the biggest and (presumably) richest cities in all of Europe. Compare this to the Red Bull Football clubs, where Salzburg has been the big dog in a small league complete with consistent European showings (top 30 club coefficient even) and their TV money is still less than leagues that don't have nearly as consistent European performances (Norway, Sweden, Poland, Greece, and Romania all have more TV money but poorer performances in Europe). And the RB club in Germany is about to blow past Salzburg in club coefficient because they're in a league that more easily can deal support a team injecting a ton of cash.

That's an excellent point that I didn't know and hadn't researched. I wonder if that would change if they consistently made it to the later stages of CL or if they win 1-2 ELs. It's definitely something I'll keep my eye on.

12 hours ago, alanschu14 said:

I actually agree with you on some level (and the idea of individual TV deals for outliers is interesting), and things like transfer fees that you're running into are still a big problem. IIRC I believe I circumvented this in my Norway game (Skeid) when I experimented with flipping Norway's FA Financial Power up to 20 which seemed to give my players better valuation... and I probably shouldn't need to do that! I was disappointed that my prize and TV money in Norway never really changed even as I eventually won Champions League, though I can understand that it's a complicated assessment because even in that case, I would still expect the traditionally big clubs to still be the biggest money earners than even my Champions League Skeid. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was limited interest in anyone wanting to watch my league games because I was having 30-0 seasons and effectively supplying the entire league with their star players (loans of 18 y/o wonderkids because HGN is so important in Norway) and begging my fellow league teams to start putting in better performances in Europe to get us more entrenched into the top 10 for more Group Stage placements.

The individual TV deals are the norm in many countries (e.g. Greece). It was also one of the main reasons that until the mid 10s Real Madrid and Barcelona were so incredibly richer than the rest of the La Liga teams. Personally, I wouldn't expect TV rights to reach EPL or La Liga figures in Greece. I would however expect a super successful club to get something like 1/3 of the money they make, as well as not facing the problems we've mentioned above (insane renewal demands because of underutilized transfer budget, players being severely undervalued etc).

 

10 hours ago, Renyy said:

I actually agree with you on some level (and the idea of individual TV deals for outliers is interesting), and things like transfer fees that you're running into are still a big problem. IIRC I believe I circumvented this in my Norway game (Skeid) when I experimented with flipping Norway's FA Financial Power up to 20 which seemed to give my players better valuation... and I probably shouldn't need to do that! I was disappointed that my prize and TV money in Norway never really changed even as I eventually won Champions League, though I can understand that it's a complicated assessment because even in that case, I would still expect the traditionally big clubs to still be the biggest money earners than even my Champions League Skeid. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was limited interest in anyone wanting to watch my league games because I was having 30-0 seasons and effectively supplying the entire league with their star players (loans of 18 y/o wonderkids because HGN is so important in Norway) and begging my fellow league teams to start putting in better performances in Europe to get us more entrenched into the top 10 for more Group Stage placements.

I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree with this trail of thought unless your squad consist of really "exotic" nationalities :P
If you have players from well established countries (Brazil, Argentina, Spain, France, Italy etc), one wouldn't expect people in these countries to really bother with the 1-2 great players in a small league since they are used to producing great talent. It is however an interesting point that along with merchandise sales, TV money might also increase if you buy reputable players from China, South Korea, USA etc.

[yolixeya]

1 hour ago, tmpusr said:

That being said, FM is not reality as I said in my previous posts. It's quite easy for a human user to load his/her team with wonderkids and win the CL a few years later. Therefore imho, what SI should consider is ways to either prevent this (I've outlined some above) or embrace this (i.e. accept that this is an alternate reality and allow the user to create a "super club" from a smaller league and let the rest of the game treat it as such).

That is your take on it but I don't agree. FM doesn't try to be reality but realistic game and games need to be somewhat easy. Call of Duty doesn't require that you are some kind of commando to play it.  And if you would go on holiday for a few seasons that would be pretty good simulation of football world. Game is mostly easy because of the non-existent AI and I don't see them solving that anytime soon. 

[grade]

6 hours ago, tmpusr said:

It is definitely not the same situation and the discrepancy is much larger, I agree. In the last 20 years Porto was the only team from a smaller league to win the CL (it is more common in EL with 7/20 winners playing in smaller leagues). That being said, FM is not reality as I said in my previous posts. It's quite easy for a human user to load his/her team with wonderkids and win the CL a few years later. Therefore imho, what SI should consider is ways to either prevent this (I've outlined some above) or embrace this (i.e. accept that this is an alternate reality and allow the user to create a "super club" from a smaller league and let the rest of the game treat it as such).

I for one think SI should embrace it.

I always believe, that the game shouldn't be a 100% simulation game of real life. Wait hear me out. There are factors, that how much you can improve programming in the next 100 years, you can't simulate in the game. One of which i call "luck". I mean may I recall all of you the luck factor that Portugal had in the 2016 European Cup, to win it. I mean I'm Portuguese i was happy to win the European Cup, but common on, Portugal hadn't win any single of its group phase games. I mean the way we reach the finals, but special the goal at the final was a very fact Hail Mary goal. It was one of those sort of goals, that Eder just took a shoot and everything... was in the right place at the right time, for Portugal. That you can't program in computer game. That is always going to be missing in simulation game, so we don't always going to have a 100% simulation of a real actual match. If we relied on the current Fantasyless/luckless match engine in FM, Portugal would never win a 2016 European Cup. Or if you want an English example Leicester in the 2015-2016 season. it would never happen in FM (I mean in the that those 7 years of anyone career, in my save anyways). An FM can't predict that sort of luck, that sort of every factor fit right for Leicester in 2015-2016. Another example all the simulation i conducted as i developed a World Champions League fantasy league the finalists are always 5 to 6 top teams, try many ways to find a mix of different winners. The only exception is when the user takes over a team. What I mean is I think SI need to adapt to have a bit of fantasy in it.

People ask why people like older games (FM is no exception), I think it was less rudimentary in graphics and gameplay in today standards, but we still had a lot of fun with them. For me no matter versions FM will have, FM 07 will always be my favorite game, since I believe it add that balance of realism and fantasy, just right.

I for one would like, for SI to embrace it, and make ways of embracing that this sort of thing will happen, since the user is better than the AI. The other way, I fear would make the game even more restrict to the user and I fear that would remove another level of fun to the game. Forcing that game to be harder for you to maintain you manager position shouldn't be the way to do it, for example. I mean adding ways to force the game to be more difficult, is not exactly the way to do it.

[Renyy]

Adding another inconsistency and hinderance that I really don't understand to the thread: Board never accepts requests to increase staff wages, claiming current wages already high and appropriate for the club's ambitions. Despite ambitions being the most prestigious trophy in club football, available funds being 10s of thousand £ per week less than competing clubs and a player transfer and wage budget exceeding club balance. Makes no sense. 

[salora]

Hi,

 

that means that if I play in Hungarian League for example during 20 years and coach the 5-6 best teams. Imagine several of my teams win UCL and EL, and Hungarian League become the first league to the UEFA coefficient, my income sponsors and tv rights won’t be increase  ?

[FlorianAlbert9]

3 ore fa, salora ha scritto:

Hi,

 

that means that if I play in Hungarian League for example during 20 years and coach the 5-6 best teams. Imagine several of my teams win UCL and EL, and Hungarian League become the first league to the UEFA coefficient, my income sponsors and tv rights won’t be increase  ?

They will increase, but not so much. 

In my save (that I have erased so I don't remember exactly), Hungarian League was the fifth league in Europe and I the prize for winning the league was 5 milions circa.

Players' value increase (something like 5-10 millions at max circa)  And I could sell great young player even for 70 (50 maybe, I don't remember)

Said that. 

 

The point is: if the target is the realism then it is right keep the financial equilibrium stable with the currently nation, 'cause it will never happen that England fails and Hungary rise. 
But if the aim is the realism then there are a ton of step to do to make the game realistic. 

The moment you cannot create a realistic match between Human's career and Ai manager, so that a Human could compete with a small nation club (thank you players scouting above all), then it's make a little sense doesn't let the financial power change in the World. 

And I think will be funny have sometimes in a long career the USA major league become the best or even an African ones. 

 

And about making comparison with past years: it's impossibile. 
In the years of Red Star winning CL the economic factor wasn't so important. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[FlorianAlbert9]

Il 17/5/2020 in 00:41 , grade ha scritto:

I for one think SI should embrace it.

I always believe, that the game shouldn't be a 100% simulation game of real life. Wait hear me out. There are factors, that how much you can improve programming in the next 100 years, you can't simulate in the game. One of which i call "luck". I mean may I recall all of you the luck factor that Portugal had in the 2016 European Cup, to win it. I mean I'm Portuguese i was happy to win the European Cup, but common on, Portugal hadn't win any single of its group phase games. I mean the way we reach the finals, but special the goal at the final was a very fact Hail Mary goal. It was one of those sort of goals, that Eder just took a shoot and everything... was in the right place at the right time, for Portugal.

only to said that in my current save, Portugal have won the 2022 World Cup at penalty shootout against France. (2-2 in reg. time with goal of Martial and Maximin, then in 84' Ronaldo and at 91' Guedes)

[Zemahh]

On 13/05/2020 at 11:58, Neil Brock said:

But some things are designed in such a way for a reason - to keep that semblance of realism in game.

But where is the "realism" where teams from minnow nations can qualify for Champions League year after year, which is something those clubs can't even dream about in reality? On one hand the game is allowing you to achieve enormous success with pretty much any club (back-to-back promotions, qualifying for Europe), but on the other dynamic world 15 years into the future would be too unrealistic? Besides that, who knows what the world will look like then, why not allow a bit of fun? You implemented a bunch of randomly selected Brexit scenarios that have no connection to the real world whatsoever, after all.

Personally, the OP described the issue that's keeping me from playing with some of my favorite clubs perfectly. Playing anywhere outside the top five leagues, the game can become very boring, very fast. Domestic league becomes a joke the moment you receive your first €15M from the Champions League and then it's just about grinding out results in Europe year after year, as your newgens improve. If the game allows you to overachieve out of all boundaries, it should also recognize that overachievement and allow you to progress in the same manner a club would if it became a regular Champions League finalist over night. Not only the sponsorship money—I can't even request Excellent facilities despite having €100M in the bank and am instead only allowed gradual improvements.

[baris28]

2 saat önce, Zemahh said:

 On one hand the game is allowing you to achieve enormous success with pretty much any club (back-to-back promotions, qualifying for Europe), but on the other dynamic world 15 years into the future would be too unrealistic? Besides that, who knows what the world will look like then, why not allow a bit of fun? You implemented a bunch of randomly selected Brexit scenarios that have no connection to the real world whatsoever, after all.

Personally, the OP described the issue that's keeping me from playing with some of my favorite clubs perfectly. Playing anywhere outside the top five leagues, the game can become very boring, very fast. Domestic league becomes a joke the moment you receive your first €15M from the Champions League and then it's just about grinding out results in Europe year after year, as your newgens improve. If the game allows you to overachieve out of all boundaries, it should also recognize that overachievement and allow you to progress in the same manner a club would if it became a regular Champions League finalist over night. Not only the sponsorship money—I can't even request Excellent facilities despite having €100M in the bank and am instead only allowed gradual improvements.

I don't think world economies change  in 15 years that much. Maybe USA and China interest in football we don't know, but football needs strong  economy and population as well.

 

Galatasaray(GS) played semi final in tournament before it was called Champions League against Romanian Steaua Bucharest in 1988. GS won the UEFA league (final against Arsenal) and Super Cup in 2000 against Real Madrid. Now Football is more about money.

I agree about €100M in the bank and board doesn't allow best coaches or increase coach limit it should be bug.

[Renyy]

On 02/06/2020 at 14:19, salora said:

Hi,

 

that means that if I play in Hungarian League for example during 20 years and coach the 5-6 best teams. Imagine several of my teams win UCL and EL, and Hungarian League become the first league to the UEFA coefficient, my income sponsors and tv rights won’t be increase  ?

The domestic prize pool and TV income won't change at all. Sponsorships will increase significantly compared to what they were or as SI defends it in percentage, but 2000% increase still isn't enough if you start low. I've been the biggest club in the world for 10 seasons now, won 6 Champion Leagues, been in I think 8 of the last 9 finals. My sponsorship money is 30 million a year except for a one off deal that netted me 100m that year (I don't know how regular these can be, but doesn't look regular). That is not even half of my annual player wages and even then my wages are 10% of on game start big teams like Barcelona. The AI is also pushing me to increase my wages, so the fundamental flaw here is an inconsistency and unsustainable financials. 

On 02/06/2020 at 17:46, FlorianAlbert9 said:

The point is: if the target is the realism then it is right keep the financial equilibrium stable with the currently nation

This argument is completely ridiculous, because any sense of realism gets thrown out of the window when you win back to back to back to back to back Champions League finals and don't see companies throwing money at you. If they want to target realism they should invest in making continental club growth harder as it is in real life, not put up inconsistent and arbitrary road blocks with absolutely no semblance of real life because the game is too easy without them. 

Furthermore national youth rating and game importance are also static attributes that affects how well a Nation develops talent. Don't for a second try to argue that a club and nation seeing massive international success wouldn't boost the interest of said sport and influence the younger generations in real life. 

There is a difference between unlikely and unrealistic. In real life there is no reason why a team from Norway can't win the Champions League 20 years in the future other than it being very difficult. Meanwhile in FM you can do it in 5, but then be forced to repeat it 5 times before you see any growth and in the mean time the game will try its hardest to get you sacked, and if you do succeed it still won't actually be enough. If you wanna advocate for realism, at least recognize realism. 

 

On 02/06/2020 at 19:44, Zemahh said:

But where is the "realism" where teams from minnow nations can qualify for Champions League year after year, which is something those clubs can't even dream about in reality? On one hand the game is allowing you to achieve enormous success with pretty much any club (back-to-back promotions, qualifying for Europe), but on the other dynamic world 15 years into the future would be too unrealistic? Besides that, who knows what the world will look like then, why not allow a bit of fun? You implemented a bunch of randomly selected Brexit scenarios that have no connection to the real world whatsoever, after all.

Personally, the OP described the issue that's keeping me from playing with some of my favorite clubs perfectly. Playing anywhere outside the top five leagues, the game can become very boring, very fast. Domestic league becomes a joke the moment you receive your first €15M from the Champions League and then it's just about grinding out results in Europe year after year, as your newgens improve. If the game allows you to overachieve out of all boundaries, it should also recognize that overachievement and allow you to progress in the same manner a club would if it became a regular Champions League finalist over night. Not only the sponsorship money—I can't even request Excellent facilities despite having €100M in the bank and am instead only allowed gradual improvements.

Spot on. I'm not arguing for a lucky run to the CL finals being rewarded with 100 million sponsorship deals and player values skyrocketing. Make the game harder, but reward success in realistic ways. I am attracted to playing outside the top five leagues because personally the game becomes stale even faster in those for me. While you should win the domestic league every year after you first reach the CL group stage, every other aspect of the club will take time and grinding to reach a level where you can instantly recognize the elite wonderkids and start reaching for global domination. Because once you get to that point it's pretty much a walk in the park, something Champions League never should be. 

Winning 3 CL in a row will probably never be repeated in real life, but in FM once I get one, the next just keeps falling in my lap. But yeah, "realism". 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Renyy

[quovadis25]

I'm currently playing in the San Marino league and Prize money and TV-Revenue have increased over the years (season 2029-2030 now). Prize money is about 438k€ for first place (in the first season 20k or something like that) now and tv money is about 1 million(first season about 50k).  So it can change ;-)

[Renyy]

The cap can't change. Some leagues don't start out at the cap.